Just trust Dick, video calling is coming.
On Jan 29, 2:49 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
