Casper, that's just changing the subject. Yes, absolutely, the hearing impaired love video calling. To bits.
But that does not mean that video calling is going to become 'big'. It has been possible for years now. They just can't use an iPhone. In the future if the other phone manufacturers finally get a clue they may need to buy a specialized phone. Webcams, as I said, cost next to nothing so its not exactly an expensive operation to hack one on. The video use case might have been a positive influence on GSM bandwidth, but only because the phone companies even bigger idiots than handset manufacturers. They THINK its going to be big, which is all that is needed for them to make it happen. But this is all in the past. Video calling has been available for years and I haven't ever, - ever-, seen anyone do it. Care to name an exception? Are you video calling? I didn't think so. Tim: "We could have the exact same discussion about internet browsing"? huh? I dont' think you got my point, then. Browsing while on the move is great. Its a thing you just couldn't do before, it fits a profile role (specifically: I'm bored and I have nothing much on me except my wallet and my phone. Ooooh, shiny! websites!) It has clear and obvious use cases that are widely applicable. The only two things that got in the way until the iPhone came along was A) cell providers that overrated the ability to browse the web and wanted to charge you through the nose for it, and B) browsing on a tiny display is somewhat annoying, which has been mitigated using pinching, focus-on-element tapping, and general UI genius. The big 'wow' factor at work here is that everybody was trying to solve problem B by making websites render specially on tiny devices, instead of building a browser that can render a full-size websites decently on a tiny device. Good solution, not one I saw coming, but thats a completely different discussion: Both of those are technical / marketing problems, not social problems. Socially, browsing the web on your phone is something we all wanted to do since 1995. There is no 'great solution' for video calling. Unless someone can come up with a way to process two separate streams of video (real life streaming into your eye balls, and the video of the other caller) using just one human brain. We're awesome at solving technical problems, but that one's a doozy. Steven: We solved the problem of letting distant relatives keep up to date with us with social networks and stuff like youtube and flickr. Or even apple's iLife suite with the online component. That, and, as I said: You can just sit down at your computer or notebook, which has a webcam, when its important to really pay full attention. Also, the iPhone does take video. The current software doesn't let you do it, but, if you own one, you should do the right thing and jailbreak the thing. Then video is all yours. See youtube uploader, qik, and other apps. On Jan 28, 10:27 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > The hearing impaired are very pleased to now be able to make phone > calls among themselves, so I wouldn't call it a solution looking for a > problem. And I suspect the video use case is a direct reason for why > we can now enjoy 14.4Mbps bandwidth - and that drives other > interesting use cases like live TV etc. even without DVB-H. > > /Casper > > On Jan 28, 9:48 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dick suggested that there will be an iPhone gadget to bend the light > > around to the camera in #227. Was that a joke? That is completely > > ridiculous. > > > Nobody cares about video calling. Here in the Netherlands it worked > > technically, it didn't have any extra costs (other than, at the time, > > a relatively expensive phone), and I had one, and so did a few of my > > friends. We never video called. They never video called. There was > > some research that asked everyone with a video phone if they even > > cared. Nobody did (had the phone for the nice big display, not for the > > video calling feature). > > > This makes sense: We're all used to the concept of a phone call. We > > don't need video because it is far too restrictive (have to LOOK at > > it, which, even if everyone walked around with a headset or the > > quality of speakerphones was -phenomenally good-, is still annoying. > > People call while walking, etcetera) for the meager benefits (attempt > > to see emotion through pixellated grainy laggy video, joy!). In > > particular, the main thing it tries to solve (convey emotion) is > > already done quite adequately by voice. We already subconsciously > > exaggerate our voice-based emotional cues when we make a phone call - > > we (modern man) has interned the ability completely already. > > > A video conference call is somewhat different - you're really sitting > > down for that one, and you are prepared. Therein lies the key: With > > notebooks and subnotebooks already near ubiquitous, and the notebook > > data revolution coming any day now (for you iPhone owners that did the > > right thing and you jailbroke it - welcome to the revolution! Just > > download pdanet and you're on your way!) - that's the future of video > > calling. > > > Mark my words: Video calling using mobile phones is a solution in > > search of a problem. It'll never become popular. > > > I'm not sure if apple has consciously decided that video calling is a > > crock when they designed the iPhone, or if they went for the slightly > > less definitive 'meh, we'll wait until someone else makes this work'. > > Note also how absolutely nobody is complaining that iPhones have no > > front cam. > > > Either way, using glass or plastic to warp the camera around would > > require a giant and very expensive widget, whereas your average simple > > webcam costs maybe 5 bucks. Assuming you can pump the video data into > > the iPod connector and the restrictive iPhone SDK allows you to get at > > this data, a cheap dongle that contains its own camera would be far > > more likely. That's presuming that people care about video calling - > > which they don't. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
