Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Are Video Phones Back From The Dead? 197

Posted by timothy from the but-I-want-video-voips-instead dept.
gwizah writes: "A company by the name of Vialta is peddling a new product all you future loving geek's can enjoy, A VideoPhone! Yes, Im sure you can all remember the many attempts to bring video-phonecall technology into the home or office, but unlike the flying car, you can pick up a pair at Fry's today! According to some reviews at USA Today and the WSJ, the product works as advertised. A new way to call Grandma? Or just another silly little toy to collect dust in that hall closet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Video Phones Back From The Dead? More

Are Video Phones Back From The Dead?

Comments Filter:
  • Why do we even need this technology? Webcams are so cheap these days, and a good broadband connection isn't difficult to get in most areas.

    And do you really want to be prank-phone-called by someone at 3 in the morning by someone not wearing any clothes?
    • I can think of some people I'd like to be prank phone called by that way. This is one of the few comments where Natalie Portman references actually make sense. Then again, I can think of a lot of people who I wouldn't want to be pranked by.
    • "why do we need this when we have webcams?" ... because grandpa cant even operate an imac but he can operate this!
    • I'd HOPE they would have a feature so you can turn off all video of you are at all suspect of the caller. ;-)

  • Bandwidth (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @05:58PM (#4159888) Homepage
    I don't think conventional phone lines can handle the data of voice and video. You'll have horrible quality on both, and is it really worth it? I'd much rather use a a quick cam and netmeeting, or equal program since i have the bandwidth to support that.
    • ..I'd much rather use a a quick cam and netmeeting
      That is why these beamer things need to support h323, so that they can talk to netmeeting/gnomemeeting/whatever. That would mean that you need to have a dialup account at some ISP to use one (unless P2P beamer was also supported), but it would make it a much more useful toy as there are loads of people out there who use or can use netmeeting already. I looked around all the beamer info I could find, and nothing mentioned h323, so I am assuming that it is a beamer to beamer only thing.

  • Wireline is playing catchup here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @05:58PM (#4159893) Homepage
    The wireline guys have to offer this, because the 3G cell phone people are. The 3G phones have a better data rate, too; remember, you only get 34Kb/s on a phone line. (56K modems are actually 56Kb/s down, 34Kb/s up; the host has to interface to the phone network digitally.)
    • Yes, and the wireless phones only cost $1.00 US per megabyte of transfer.
    • And while it might be possible to have both parties log into an ISP that supports V.92, this would hurt more than it helps. Yes, V.92 would increase bit rate somewhat (max of 48 instead of 34), but having to log in through an ISP would also increase latency a painful amount.

      Communicating point-to-point helps the latency more than the lower data rate hurts the signal.

      At least that's my guess of why they went that way.
      • They went this way because the goal is to simply be able to phone someone else just like using a normal phone. no service contracts, no computer equipment, nothign else.. just plug it in and you can do videophone calls with others who have them.

        It's not about designing videoconferencing gear, or about data rate, or whatnot.
      • Both parties dialing into an ISP wouldn't be able to increase bit rate at all. The upstream connection is always limited to 33.6 on an analog line, no matter what equipment the ISP has. And the only bit rate that can matter in this situation is the _lower_ of the receive and transmit speeds.

  • I'll FiberOp ya back! (Score:1, Redundant)

    by garcia ( 6573 )
    Lucky Sylvester Stallone.

    7 word being the most to remember for one line in movie.

    1 fucking fine woman as co-star.

    1 extremely hot bitch on the FiberOp phone coming out of the shower naked on a wrong-number.

    Waiting for the future...

  • Grandma? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @05:59PM (#4159905)
    Just curious - whenever some thing comes along with a "novel" method of communication - people have to immediately try to push it on my grandma.

    "Have the kids call Grandma this"
    "Grandma can see the kids that"

    I mean, I cant even get my grandma to look at a computer - and she is mostly deaf, where email would really help her.

    but she hates technology - just write a letter she says.

    we all know that it will be the young technophiles that will be early adopters, so you should say things like:

    "get a new girlfriend with this nifty whiz bang video phone that shows your technical prowess"
    • Face it. Grandma was a technophile in her youth. My grandmother loved her first electric typewriter. My grandfather patented devices that vastly increased efficiency at the factory he managed.

      So why is Grandma a technophobe now? Because of repeated disappointments. The sexiest technologies always fail on their first couple attempts. How many times have you heard on CNN about an Old technology being put to a new use?

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:00PM (#4159908) Homepage
    Only $499.99 for a pair!

    They're gonna need more $ than that when Apple Sues them for using Aqua buttons on their site.

    Visit LostBrain [lostbrain.com]

    tcd004
    • If this thing really has nothing to do with Apple, and they did not license the buttons, then I hope Apple cleans their clocks. The buttons add a very misleading appearance to their website, and I suspect most reasonable people would think this is intentional. Just because it is neat looking and expensive doesn't mean it is Apple, after all. Apple worked hard to build a brand their products.
    • Not really a rip of Apple, they made the site in Dreamweaver and used their flash buttons (which came out before OS X).
  • "Sir, a VideoPhone is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

  • won't work (Score:5, Informative)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:02PM (#4159916) Homepage Journal
    David Foster Wallace described, in Infinite Jest, why video phones are unlikely to ever catch on, and I don't think he was the first. The great thing about the telephone is that one needn't give the person on the other end of the line one's complete attention.

    On the telephone, you can look through a magazine, clip your toenails, read you email, or make a sandwich, all without the other person suspecting that you are not hanging on his or her every word. Meanwhile, you are free to maintain the illusion that the other person is giving you their undivided attention.

    With video phones, it would immediately become clear that we busy 21st century people don't have the time or patience to be attentive throughout an electronic conversation. It also would make answering the phone in one's underwear riskier, and might make people feel like they needed to be made up and dressed well when in their own homes.
    • Actually, there are additional reasons that it won't work.

      Consider the setup. You have some sort of video display. You have some sort of camera. The body language of your eyes is suddenly all wrong.

      Suppose the camera is mounted at the left or right side of the display. You look frankly into the (displayed) eyes ... and to the viewer on the other end, you're looking off to one side. You're very interested, watching their face. To them, you're looking off to one side.

      The situation worsens with a top or bottom mount.

      Supposing that you realize this, and play to it ... now when you look directly into someone's eyes, you can only actually see their face in peripheral vision.

      Put the camera into the middle of the display. Most women have *already* encountered men who can't move their eyes up quite high enough. Big loser there.

      Now, add the whole silly idea of conference calling, where there are multiple people involved. Who is looking at who, exactly? Too strange. Here's a meeting environment that feels as though everyone were feeling weasely, looking anywhere but at you ....

      The breakthrough technology is to have a camera somehow sit behind the displayed eyes of the person that it is displaying to. I don't think we're even remotely close to there yet. Until then, though, the system is transmitting not signal, not noise, but the wrong signal.

      Amy!

      • Re:won't work (Score:2, Interesting)

        by good-n-nappy ( 412814 )
        Actually, current research suggests that there is an asymmetry in our sensitivy to eye contact. In fact, humans seem to be less sensative when someone is looking below their eyes (I don't think the asymmetry covers where men look, though). Some folks at Stanford looked into it - look here [stanford.edu].

        On the Beamer, it appears that the camera is located just above the screen. It might be a coincidence, but this is the best setup to take advantage of the asymmetry. Add to that the small screen and eye contact is probably not an issue at all.

        Still don't know if people really want video phone calls though...

    • Re:won't work (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jimmcq ( 88033 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:51PM (#4160174) Journal
      It's not like the video is always on... It is never on when you first answer the phone, and you only need to turn it on when you want to give someone your complete attention, but you can leave it off when you are busy with something else.
      • what if these are hackable - and you could, in the future, hack a video phone to provide you a video feed without the other end even knowing its on.

        What if this was a FEATURE - you know, to thwart the terrorists - and the feds could take a peek into your home anytime they just wanted to check up on *not you*!! but the terrorists oh, and maybe the children.

        thats one reason I dont ever want video phones. the only reason why I would actually want it is 1-976-HOT-SEXX.
      • You missed the point. In the situation you describe, you can tell when people aren't given you their attention: whenever their cameras are off. The beauty of the voice-only telephone is that there is no way to tell. Even if people buy this, they will constantly be denying that they have, to avoid revealing that they only turned off the camera so they could take a poo while on the phone.
      • It's not like the video is always on... It is never on when you first answer the phone, and you only need to turn it on when you want to give someone your complete attention, but you can leave it off when you are busy with something else.

        So, kind of like call waiting, where your conversations are worth being interrupted. The fact that the other person doesn't fire up the camera will let you know you aren't worth their full attention .

    • Re:won't work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @07:14PM (#4160298) Homepage Journal
      I can sum up why it will in one word:
      Porn
      • Apparently Microsoft Netmeeting is popular for this. It doesn't run on the platforms I use, so I suppose I've missed out.
    • I have solved this problem. Remember that Nine Inch Nails video with
      the "missing scene" parts? Well grab a silver marker and some nice
      black Canson paper and make a bunch of cards to put in front of the
      camera (or make a screen saver version and aim the camera at your
      display) with things like "www.DMCAsucks.org", "free $hacker", "this
      is is for your own good", &c. Now after 3 minutes of talking with
      them via the vidphone you can say "well I have to go and cook
      something so while we are talking you can watch my fortune mod or you
      can see the new Britney Spears video. Which one is more interesting
      than looking at my ugly face?"

      Its not so much that a vidphone sucks because its a vidphone with all
      of its problems. Its that a vidphone sucks because people haven't
      thought of a way to use it to send more information than a head shot.
      I am willing to bet that at one point these devices will be discounted
      when they start embedding Pepsi logos in the corner so that these too
      can be used to grab eyeballs.
    • With video phones, it would immediately become clear that we busy 21st century people don't have the time or patience to be attentive throughout an electronic conversation. It also would make answering the phone in one's underwear riskier, and might make people feel like they needed to be made up and dressed well when in their own homes.
      So what's so tough about building a videophone that has a button for "answer with video" and a separate button for"answer audio only"? Having a capability doesn't necessarily mean you need to use it.

      Crispin
      ----
      Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
      Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
      Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
      Available for purchase [wirex.com]

  • Voyeurs dream (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well the phone design is cool, and it seems great for voyeurs. Call a random girl, say it is a bad number and send the end-of-connection video then black screen, she thinks the call is over, but you're still behind the cam! ;-)
    Sounds good! ;-)
    • Call a random girl, say it is a bad number and send the end-of-connection video then black screen, she thinks the call is over, but you're still behind the cam!

      Chances are, just like a regular phone, she'd hang up on her end too - or do you know women who, upon hearing a phone go 'click', just put it down whereever they are, thus tying up their phone line?
  • How many of you want to be awakened by your boss calling you because you're late, and you have to stare at him through a camera, with your hair running every which way and eye crusties looming?

    How many of you girls want to get calls from your hot date and have to show him your green exfoliating facial mask and curlers in your hair?

    People like voice communication because it's easy to seem professional and mature on the other end, no matter what you are looking or feeling like. I can discuss networking plans in my shorts and undershirt at home, or order a pizza while I'm blind drunk, without fear that the other person is staring at one particular feature of me and giggling.

    I predict absolutely no adoption of this for phone sex, either. You don't want to know what that sultry-sounding woman on the other end looks like.
    • ...when she answered the phone holding a cardboard mask on a stick front of her early-morning face so as not to freighten the caller. As I recall, Jane had a closet full of masks!

  • Why would I need it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mmol_6453 ( 231450 ) <short DOT circui ... OT grnet DOT com> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:06PM (#4159946) Homepage Journal
    Forget about "geekiness is next to godliness," why would I need it?

    The only reason I'd want the video would be to convey additional information. Like putting a document close to the camera so they can read it.

    But the screen's too small for that.

    My guess is that new families (if they aren't broke) will want it so they can see what their kids made in school.
  • If these devices were in widespread use, and if the phone companies would shoot a picture down the wire along with the caller ID information, I'd be all over it. I'd pay $20 a month for it, no problem.

    The problem with caller ID in my mind has always been that it's not specific enough. Sure, I can tell that someone is calling from my office, or from my girlfriend's office, but who is it? If it's a number I don't recognize, or a business name, then immediately I can see if I want to bother picking it up.

    I'd even pick up for telemarketers if the chick was hot enough. Wait, I bet people would start using stock photos of hot pr0n chicks just to get me to pick up. Scratch that.

    Of course, the phone companies will never get that into play - they can't even get caller ID to work across providers, so adding a photo is out of the question, I'm sure.
  • Personally, I prefer to talk to people face to face, and because of this I don't like talking in the phone. This Beamer thing could be a godsend to me, but then, sometimes I'm so bad tempered when I pick up the phone that I wouldn't like the other person to see me anyway. And it's relatively expensive... A good wireless phoneset costs just around 25 bucks and enables you to walk around while talking. And then, although I don't like talking in the phone, I like to walk around a lot while talking. I'm sure there are more people like me. Ultimately, it seems like being able to see the other person is only advantageous for the one who sees, and not for the one who is seen.
    • I used to work at an ISP helpdesk and ever since I quit I've had a great phobia of talking on the phone. If I need to talk to someone, I like a face to face (as in being in the same room) conversation or e-mail in some form.

      Why bother with a video stream? It's just a gimmick as far as I can tell. One of those things a crazy CEO would order for all of his staff because "it's so cool".

  • It seems that they are not expecting you to be connected to the internet while you are phoning, and if they are using the POTS, you get a maximum data-rate of 53.2kbps, which will have to carry your voice data AND the video data, both ways.

    so it either means REALLY bad quality video, or really SLOW video, either of which seem quite pointless.

    I videoconference every night with about ~200kbps, and the quality still can stand improvement.
  • I work in a social services non profit organization. Our client services director made a big hoopla about getting a video phone inorder to do casemangement for people getting out of prison with certain diseases that fit our mission statement. After a bigger hoopla it was even installed and guess what it works. its not that bad (decent compression allows for a 240xsomething video stream to go through) along with voice but you know how many times its been used since it was installed.... 6 months ago? once, by me to make sure it works....

    Into the closet it goes along with all the secure wifi *smirk* projects and other novelty things purchased before my time.

  • Did gwizah even read the reviews? (Score:5, Informative)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:11PM (#4159980) Journal

    According to some reviews at USA Today and the WSJ, the product works as advertised.

    Gees, Louise! I'm used to slashdotters not reading the articles before submitting comments. But I don't even think the submitter read them this time!

    From USAToday's review: But based on my tests, Beamer sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. And when it did, the pixilated video could be as jittery as Jell-O.

    From WSJ review: That's much better than the 1992 AT&T phone did, but it's a far cry from normal, full-motion video. In our tests, if either of us moved too much, the video resembled that old, jerky footage of astronauts on the moon. And, when the connection quality deteriorated, or was poor to begin with, the video froze up momentarily. Also, there were times when our words didn't match up with our lips -- kind of like a badly dubbed movie.

    This is works as advertised? I don't think so...

    GMD

  • Who would be so stupid to buy the first one? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheezycrust ( 138235 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:12PM (#4159985)
    This reminds me... Who would have been the first person that bought a normal phone? And who would he call, since he was the only one having a phone?
    • Same guy who bought an HDTV capable set before there were any HDTV signals (hell, for all I know, there STILL aren't any :)

      On a related note, Atari once produced more cartridges for a couple of their games (Pac-Man and E.T.) than existed systems at the time. Can't play a game on a non-existant system, now can we?

      Moral is: some people are either very savvy, or very stupid. Corporations only moreso.
    • One of the all time great Dilbert strips was based on this idea.

      Dilbert bought the first videophone and sat in front of it waiting for someone to call.

      Dogbert mused that the scary part was that all progress depended on people being stupid enough to do things like that.
    • You can buy them in pairs and give the other device to someone you frequently call. Girlfriend or Grandma or so...

      So this isn't as stupid as it seems. However, given the quality of the phonelines this should probably only be interesting if an ISDN line is used.

      When i ordered ISDN in 1996 one of it's selling points was the possible use for video conferencing.
      I've yet to see specialised equipment for it that is priced under $500 dollars. If there's still a market for it, it would be better if the telco's would considering ISDN as it's base service instead of current PSTN lines. But given the installed base of PSTN this would probably never happen..

    • Silly... you couldn't BUY a phone until 20 years ago, when Ma Bell was chopped up into pieces.
  • This would take Caller ID to a new level IF I get to see who's calling before I "answer" the phone. Another thought -- how long before advertising banners get added to the top or bottom. (Maybe I can sell my end as advertising space, charging per person I call that answers the phone and "sees" the ad.)
  • I still use *my* C128.

    It's got 320x200 resolution!!!
  • Haven't you ever seen the movie "Mother"? Getting one to talk to you Grandma with would be such a bad idea.

  • I have a hard time imagining a market for a video phone for anyone other than relatives who want to see each other when talking, and even that would have to compete with the combination of computers, email, and digital imaging devices that are becoming increasingly prevalent. I certainly don't need to look at anyone else while we talk, nor do I want them looking at me. I think a videophone as a specialized device is an idea whose time not only hasn't come, it never will.
  • $300 for a phone?

    You're better off spending $30 for a camera, and attaching it to your computer. If you dont have a computer, you might as well buy one for just a little bit more, which will be far more usefull.

  • Not Quite Ready (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Auckerman ( 223266 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:20PM (#4160031)
    There are 3 problems that are holding back video conferencing.

    1. Commonly agreed codecs that can be expanded without breaking backward compatibility.

    2. Easy to use dialing for a standalone video phone hooked up via broadband.

    3. Video phones are unnatural. This I think is the biggest problem. If you are looking at the screen, you are not looking at the camera. As a result you are not making eye contact. This is very disorienting at first and takes time to get used to. The camera needs to be as close to the screen as possible, otherwise when you are talking to a girl, it will look to her like you are looking at her breasts.

    Easiest solution (while not being the cheapest) is for ATT, Sprint, etc setting up on the internet Video phone router stations and people could order a phone number that works with standard phones and with video phones. If such a thing were done, they need to avoid the Token Ring style performance of current "expensive" solutions (connections are all dropped to the lowest bandwidth for multi person calls).
    • "it will look to her like you are looking at her breasts."
      can they make one that makes her think I'm looking at her eyes while I stare at her breasts?
    • The camera needs to be as close to the screen as possible, otherwise when you are talking to a girl, it will look to her like you are looking at her breasts.

      I thought this was the normal male method of talking to women.
      • Pretty much. I bought a friend of mine a shirt that said "Hey asshole! I'm up here. ^" (well, it was an arrow, but you get the idea. Of course, she had DD or DDD, so I'm sure that had something to do with it :)
  • There is far to many redudant posts here complaining how a "video phone" will ruin communications,....you dont think there will be an option to turn off video (just have audio) in this device if not future ones? Or in the very least just put towel or whatnot in front of the camera,......that wasn't so hard, now was it?

    I think its the mere idea of having this as an option makes it neat, no need to jump down its throat simply because you can't see the two sides of it....
    • Then the other person will wonder why you're covering up, it'll be rude if you can see him but not yourself. There's too much potential for miscommunication, while searching for privacy. More tedious etiquette would have to be developed, but quite frankly I don't want to be seen on the phone, ever. Not just occasionally, but ever.

  • THIS is considered "working?" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:23PM (#4160049) Homepage
    "The product works as advertised?"

    The WSJ article says

    "based on my tests, Beamer sometimes worked and sometimes didn't...when it did, the pixilated video could be as jittery as Jell-O... on none of my Beamer calls were the voice and the movement of the other party's lips in sync..."

    "If both people press the button before a connection is made, the video may fail. [If you get it right] there's an uncomfortable silence for between 15 and 45 seconds.... the audio resumes when the person at the other end shows up on screen... If the person does show up, that is. My initial efforts to connect with my father-in-law repeatedly failed, until Vialta replaced the unit I had sent him."

    Have our standards for "computerish" devices fallen so low that Slashdot considers THAT to be "working as advertised?"

    I personally used a Picturephone at the World's Fair in 1964. To the best of my recollection, the picture was black-and-white, and small (perhaps 5" wide by 7" high--it was in portrait orientation). But it was razor sharp, had a good grayscale, and looked pretty much like good live television--I'm sure it was a 30 fps rate or close to it.

    Oh, and the audio on the 1964 Picturephone was perfectly lip-synced. OF COURSE. I didn't even think about it at the time, I took it for granted.

    Until I read the article, it had never even crossed my mind that there could BE a videophone that WASN'T lip-synced.

    To work, a videophone has got to give you a closer emotional experience than voice alone. A jittery non-lip-synced picture is going to be a distraction and, I would think, would INCREASE your perception of emotional distance.

    It's not enough for these new gadgets to be affordable and easily self-installed on a phone line. If they can't match the "user experience" of a 1964 Picturephone I'd say they're dead in the water.

    Remember the scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" where Dr. Floyd is talking to his daughter on, IIRC an "AT&T Picturephone?" It's 2002 now, why don't we have them yet?
    • Remember the scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" where Dr. Floyd is talking to his daughter on, IIRC an "AT&T Picturephone?" It's 2002 now, why don't we have them yet?

      Astronauts have them and do videoconferencing during shuttle missions all the time. Just because YOU don't doesn't mean that the astronauts don't.
    • Apparently my memory of the 1964 Picturephone is faulty, because it says here [techtv.com] that "The image only refreshed once every few seconds." That's sure not the way I remember it, but...

      On the other hand, something doesn't quite jibe, because this article [cmu.edu] says that the bandwidth was 1,000,000 Hz, which was about one-quarter that of full broadcast EIA RS-170-A black-and-white video; so if you assume that the screen resolution was half that of broadcast in both dimensions, it should have been possible to get a full 30 fps. Or if the screen had full broadcast resolution, it should have been possible to get 7 fps, which is a far cry from "once every few seconds."
      • Apparently my memory of the 1964 Picturephone is faulty, because it says here [techtv.com] that "The image only refreshed once every few seconds." That's sure not the way I remember it, but...

        Have you considered that for the world's fair what they provided you was not a prototype? Have you considered that it was probably a mockup, with a real screen, camera and phone, but that the transmission was over conventional closed-circuit TV, not a conventional phone line?

        I saw one at the 1967 World's Fair, and I am sure the demonstrator explicitly said the model we were looking at wasn't using a conventional phone line.

        It was right next to this other amazing product we would see in the future, the touch tone phone. Visitors were invited to dial a number on the touch tone phone, while an electronic stop watch would display for them how few seconds it took to dial.

  • This is just another phone I'd never answer.
  • i don't like talking to them, much less seeing them.

  • Any Idea how old this technology really is? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The first demonstration of videophone technology occured betewen the offices of AT&T in New York and the secretary of commerce in Washington. The secretary of commerce was Herbert Hoover.

    If this technology had any traction with real people it would have caught on long ago. It has had plenty of opportunity.
  • What they need with video phones is for the video camera to be behind the screen (in the top third), so you can make eyecontact. Otherwise you're just talking to someone while you're watching a video of them and it ends up being weird.

    Of course, I don't think it's possible (at least not for a reasonable price) to do that yet, and that is the thing holding back videophones, and it's logical successor, telepresence/teleimmersion (I prefer the word telepresence, more appropriate).

    Telepresence is where you sit in front of a videoscreen, and behind the screen is an array of video cameras. same thing on the other side (person you're "viewing"). So when you both sit down, it's just like sitting across the table from someone (in theory, at least).

  • The Good The Bad And the UGLY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by visionsofmcskill ( 556169 ) <vision&getmp,com> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @06:48PM (#4160156) Homepage Journal
    This product IS at last very close to being consumer friendly.

    A: Invisible... Needs no extra software/hardware other than a standards compliant video phone on the other end...

    B: Backwards compatible.... Works with standard phones... even rotary..

    C: Non-complex... Requires no additional parts... nor includes unecasary parts.... such as including a phone as part of the unit would stop home users from being able to use their own phones easily...

    D: WYSIWYG.... the device is straight forward and involves no special instructions beyond press button after phone is answered.

    On the bad side

    A: device reuires you to press buton and confirm if the other person has a video phone before hand... "hey you got video?", "yea, but i dont wanna link"... etc.... The phones should detect if the other has video and have a simple alert on the LCD saying "video link possible, start video?". This eliminates a user anoyance that will slow Sales...

    b: the device is not high enough quality for user satisfaction.... plain and simply 15fps in best conditions is not good enough... in NY city the phone lines here are so bad i get a 28.8 connect at home... even with a 56k modem... The makers need to find a very very very high video compression algorithm... anything less just isnt gonna satisfy the user.... plus... if a better algorithm is devised in the future how compatible will these phones be?

    c: the last issue is that 30 second delay when commence video... plain and simply this is the largest hurdle... and is probably technicaly required in such a manner that it may never be fixed without a major change in our phone lines. sadly this is the one that will most likely kill this best iteration.

    for those saying... "why not just use my webcam"..
    Web cams suck... are inconsistent as a consumer whole.. require special software and a computer, are far less mobile being tehered to a computer, are complex to set up (comparitivly), are as bad as this product in 90% of homes without the high speed bandwidth... are greatly less likely to be set-up in remote areas... etc.... The bottom line... web cams are not invisible.. and require technical maintenece/know-how....

    lastly... Cell phones will probably be the way this video phoning actualy enter consumer hands... everyone buys cell phones... the advent of web services on them has introduced color and pictures to them... and the next step is simply to put small video cameras in them... like in japan... :-D

    • It's my own opinion that there's little or no need for the live-motion video in it's current form. It just plain sucks. The National Research Council did some work with HDTV videoconferencing that was incredible, and really gave the impresion you were right there with the person. The problem is they needed some major bucks and heavy use of CANet, Canada's high speed research and education network. This is a long time off, and is amoung the things that super high bandwidth everywhere will bring. Without the government backing that initiative, it'll never happen, though.

      I argue your opinion on the webcams, though.

      Like most of you out there I talk to a lot of people online.. I have a decent quality digital camcorder connected via firewire to my powerbook. I just use it to snap a picture (in high res) and upload it every couple minutes when I'm talking to someone. They can check via the web whenever if they care. Same thing applies to my PC with a cheaper, but still nice (640x480) webcam. If I have a problem, this is usually sufficient to send a picture of what I'm working on. I wish there were more tools that focused on this approach rather than the netmeeting style blurry mess.

      If it's not convienent to use a webcam, a video phone is likely to be equally as inappropriate. I'd much rather one really nice frame every couple minutes or when the sender wants than the sick low-res joke h.263 and it's friends provide.

      My $0.02cdn..
  • I understand that videophones may have their useful applications in some instances, but it seems that it would be cheaper to have a broadband connection and a $30 netcam.

    Not only would the quality be better but it would be a lot cheaper.

    Yes, I know that the broadband and a netcam setup isn't always available but it's just my two cents.
  • If you've never been to EPCOT at Walt Disney World, the attraction called Spaceship Earth (it's the REALLY BIG golf ball) is a slow-moving ride about the progress of communication. It is, of course, sponsored by AT&T.

    Throughout this attraction you pass animatronic exhibits that show the discovery of fire, the history of written works, the dark ages, and the renaissance. Then they show television, telephones, and other modern inventions.

    After a view of the top of the inside of big ball (it's like a planetarium), you go through some highly (AT&T branded) exhibits about "what's next for communication in the near as well as the not-so-distant future.

    Do you know what they displayed? VIDEO PHONES, AND NOTHING BUT THEM! There must be at least 5 exhibits showing off video phones, and no other improvements in technology. The discovery of fire only got one exhibit! After a contemplative look about the history of the transfer of information over thousands of years, I thought to myself, "is the best they can come up with is VIDEO PHONES?"

    Once we get video phones, is that it? We are communication-complete? I don't get it. Videophones are obviously NOT the future. It is blatant hype and although it seems like the obvious next step (like radio->television), it is not. I'm out of ideas, but video phones are nothing but hype.
  • What exactly is the advantage to a video phone anyway? I thought the advantage to regular phones was that you can talk to people while lounging in your underwear and such. I mean, I would say it could be used for phone sex, except the people your talking to are probably overweight middle-aged women anyway.
    • I thought the advantage to regular phones was that you can talk to people while lounging in your underwear and such.

      Huh, do video-phone cameras tend to take crotch shots?

      Here I figured half a shirt and pulled back hair would suffice. (you think Max Headroom wears clothes below the monitor??)
  • There's really no way to transmit much useful info over copper wires that have been at more or less the same specifications since the telephone was patented by Bell.

    The future of the videophone (if there actually is a future) is wireless broadband, whether it is 3G cell phone tech (which should have the bugs worked out in a year or so or wireless networking. But it will never be popular.

    This is why:

    I could set up videophoney with my broadband connection right now -- and set it up for my friends too -- probably in about a day. But demand, as far as I can tell, is zilch. Let's face it: the face we put on outdoors is, for many of us that aren't naturally built and beautiful, and PITA. How wonderful it is that we can still sit around at home sweaty, stinky, and half naked and yet still interact with our friends, and they still think we are cool.

    Somehow I just don't think the vid phone will *ever* catch on. The video-free phone just has so many advantates over it, why should anyone want to take a step backwards in technology?
  • "Face it, the only people who are going to buy these phones are no-life geeks like you. Therefore, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a mirror?"

    "It's hell being an early adopter."

    Okay okay, Scott Addams worded it better, but you get the idea.

  • It hasn't moved from techie toy to household item yet. And price point? Youch. $300 for one phone That's not exactly affordable. I can get 20 cordless phones or 1 phone and $285 toward the bills. Or a $50 cell phone or I can buy an XBox, PS2 or Gamecube or... Well, you get the idea. Economics have already ensured that nobody but the geeks and large corporations (with geeks) will buy this and even then they're only going to have a handful of people to "vidphone". I'll pass, thanks.
  • During the 60's, when videophone was offered in Chicago, Bell said it wasn't successful because people let it ring on average 20 rings before answering as opposed to 4 rings for a normal phone. (Never mind that it cost $1800 per month, plus $10 per minute)...
  • Am I nuts here, or is everyone just avoiding using better video codecs?

    I mean, with something like MPEG-4, you could likely get decent video and audio over 33.6. It would be better than video over a modem since there's not going to be routers droppign packets, or any protocol overhead (ppp, ip, tcp, then rtsp, all doing their own signaling an error checking and correction)

    So, what's the big problem with making decent videophones? For $300 I could build a device exactly like mentioned here, just using a cheap PC, TV output, and a cheap web cam.
  • ...for making prank phone calls!

    Think about it:
    1. Costumes
    2. Animals
    3. Video feeds from other sources
    Ew, video feeds... telemarketers will probably now call you with commercials. Oh boy! "Honey, the advertising alarm is going off again!"

    Fuck video phones. My webcam sucks but I think I'd rather stick with it.

    I really would like to make some prank calls in a costume though...
  • It seems that this product is behind the curve. With VoIP coming on strong and broadband leading that push, I don't see why people would people shell out $300 a pop for these. OK, it works with a regular phone and phone line, but what about the demographic that would actually buy this toy? 99% likely they have a computer, and webcams are $50 each. NetMeeting comes with MS (you can find similar free tools for *nix).

    I actually do NetMeetings on a regular basis with my in-laws so they can chat with their granddaughter (my poor 3 year old is going to grow up with a seriously distorted age gap view of the world - she regular chats on NetMeeting, only ever sees cordless or more often cell phones, already knows how to work the DVD player in my rather complex setup, ... but anyway). I have cable broadband and they have ADSL, and we are about 6000 miles apart, and it all works great.

    OK, it can be washy sometimes, but the review wasn't all that hot on the quality of this video phone either. The sound is just fine if you avoid feedback problems. It's a perfect use of modern tools for distant relatives to keep close at all times.
  • Does anyone know of good software, open source?, than runs on Linux, Win, or Max OS X that lets someone with broadband and a camera video conference? So far I've tried Connectic (poor) and XP Messaging (even worse). Ideally, software that is on something OTHER than Windoze. THANKS!

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close