Why haven't video calls taken off

It was supposed to be the next big thing but it fizzled out like MMS

An important thing to note is you would have to use the speakerphone to do video calls (unless you're always on BT headset or handsfree, which is not true for an overwhelming majority of people) and this compromises privacy in a big way…no one wants people nearby snooping in on their conversations.

Would love to hear your thoughts on why it hasn't taken off yet?

I will make a post about the responses I receive and will publish them in a few weeks for all to see (names are anonymous)

-- Sachendra Yadav
http://sachendra.wordpress.com

Because it's a greedy mobile interface:

http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog /2008 /05 /21 /greedy -mobile -interfaces /

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Sachendra Yadav sachendra at gmail.com wrote: It was supposed to be the next big thing but it fizzled out like MMS An important thing to note is you would have to use the speakerphone to do video calls (unless you're always on BT headset or handsfree, which is not true for an overwhelming majority of people) and this compromises privacy in a big way…no one wants people nearby snooping in on their conversations. Would love to hear your thoughts on why it hasn't taken off yet? I will make a post about the responses I receive and will publish them in a few weeks [trim]

Alexander,
I'm not sure I agree with the notion of 'greedy interface' as the problem. I mean, it's the whole point when you do video calls, no?

I think rather that there are 3 general issues with video phoning -

1. Technology - they are bandwidth heavy, and unreliable in terms of quality. Sometimes it's good other times choppy etc. It has to work like tv all the time from any location. Sort of how audio phoning works.

2. Logistics - maybe this is also technological, but it's too much hassle to sit in the right place, have the right lighting etc. to make it worthwhile. I remember when I first used webcams (low res, choppy etc.) the excitement of seeing someone from another part of the world was quickly overcome by constantly wanting to 'place' them such that I could be 'eye to eye' with them, and be able to see their face properly etc. Typically, lights behind the person that work fine as local ambient light are terrible for the person on the other end of the call - all they see is a silhouette.

3. Privacy - I think it would be just terrible if you HAD to use videoconferencing - I don't have to pat down my cowlick in order to speak over the phone today, or put on a tie etc.

-Peyush

Because it's a greedy mobile interface:

http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog /2008 /05 /21 /greedy -mobile -interfaces /

Personally, the issue of video calls has always been not knowing where to look. In conversation, most people tend to look at the other's face and into their eyes. With video calling, one is looking at the other person through multiple layers and for it to appear that one is making eye contact, one actually has to look at the camera lens which feels like the lens is looking back at you, not the other person. It is as if one has to feed one's eye contact through a third party that isn't human, to boot. Does that make sense? That and the lag time.

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Peyush Agarwal peyush.agarwal at oracle.com wrote:

Alexander, I'm not sure I agree with the notion of 'greedy interface' as the problem. I mean, it's the whole point when you do video calls, no?

Add to these the fact that simply seeing the other person on the other end of the line adds very little to the communication. Now, if I were to see what you see, instead of just seeing you....

On May 30, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Peyush Agarwal wrote:

Alexander, I'm not sure I agree with the notion of 'greedy interface' as the problem. I mean, it's the whole point when you do video calls, no? I think rather that there are 3 general issues with video phoning - 1. Technology - they are bandwidth heavy, and unreliable in terms of quality. Sometimes it's good other times choppy etc. It has to work like tv all the time from any location. Sort of how audio phoning works. 2. Logistics - maybe this is also technological, but it's too much hassle to sit in the right place, [trim]

Nancy Broden
nancy.broden at gmail.com

No.2 below is what I mean by "greedy" in this case. All you need to do in a normal phone call is hold the phone. Whereas in a video call you constantly need to pay attention to the logistics.

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Peyush Agarwal
peyush.agarwal at oracle.com wrote:
Alexander, I'm not sure I agree with the notion of 'greedy interface' as the problem. I mean, it's the whole point when you do video calls, no? I think rather that there are 3 general issues with video phoning - 1. Technology - they are bandwidth heavy, and unreliable in terms of quality. Sometimes it's good other times choppy etc. It has to work like tv all the time from any location. Sort of how audio phoning works. 2. Logistics - maybe this is also technological, but it's too much hassle to sit in the right place, have [trim]

Sachendra Yadav kirjoitti 30.5.2008 kello 14:55:

An important thing to note is you would have to use the speakerphone to do video calls (unless you're always on BT headset or handsfree, which is not true for an overwhelming majority of people) and this compromises privacy in a big way…no one wants people nearby snooping in on their conversations. Would love to hear your thoughts on why it hasn't taken off yet?

One guess:

A) When you've got anything worth displaying in the video, it's also often too loud and/or impolite to speak through a loudspeaker. Everybody else is there too. Imagine a shop, an office, or a museum.

B) When you're in a place that you chose for privacy to make the call, you'll look creepy in the video. Just look at all the self-made webcam videos in Youtube and you know what I mean.

It's a bit hard to find a scenario where the comfort of using video overrides the discomfort of using the very same video. That's why I believe that private video calls will continue to be an edge case.

However, I believe that video conferencing will grow its popularity. It is OK to be a little loud in a meeting, because the room is likely to be free of outsiders. Video also helps to interpret who's speaking. In private calls it's obvious.

Thanks,
Petteri

-- Petteri Hiisilä
palvelumuotoilija /
Senior Interaction Designer
iXDesign / +358505050123 /
petteri.hiisila at ixdesign.fi

"In this island, everything happens for a reason." - John Locke, LOST

Well, that's only partly correct. It adds little to the value of communication if the quality is bad, but in most cases it has been proven that visual cues are a significant back channel of human communication.

I believe the second scenario (broadcasting what you see) is actually now implemented in most 3G mobiles, i.e. you can switch between the fron-facing & the back-facing camera. I'm sure of course that the option is deeply hidden in some menu ;-)

Another thing I forgot to mention is that there is little support for the "negotiation phase". If you look at things like Skype, you can negotiate in advance via IM if you want to do a video call and each party can enable or disable their video feed independently during the call. Also, you can elect to show if you have a camera (& thus can do video calls). On a mobile, you can't be sure if the other party is capable or willing to engage in a video call, and I'm not sure if there's a seamless way to hand over between video & voice-only calls.

Cheers,
Alex

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Nancy Broden nancy.broden at gmail.com wrote: Add to these the fact that simply seeing the other person on the other end of the line adds very little to the communication. Now, if I were to see what you see, instead of just seeing you.... On May 30, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Peyush Agarwal wrote: Alexander, I'm not sure I agree with the notion of 'greedy interface' as the problem. I mean, it's the whole point when you do video calls, no? I think rather that there are 3 general issues with video phoning - 1. Technology - they are bandwidth heavy, and unreliable [trim]

I know that I tend to not use the cellphone much in crowded public spaces because it seems odd to be having a private conversation in public (even without speakerphone, one half of that conversation is pretty public). But given the number of people already having one half of loud conversations on their cellphones in public (even in quiet spaces), there seems to be a large percentage of people using cellphones who aren't worried about the privacy issue.

(Frankly, I wish there were far fewer of them, but that's a separate issue.)

- Johndan

Sachendra Yadav kirjoitti 30.5.2008 kello 14:55:

An important thing to note is you would have to use the speakerphone to do video calls (unless you're always on BT headset or handsfree, which is not true for an overwhelming majority of people) and this compromises privacy in a big way…no one wants people nearby snooping in on their conversations. Would love to hear your thoughts on why it hasn't taken off yet?

The fact is, for us, Video Calls, "took off' quite some time ago, but they have a particular time, place and function: We have a weekly video conference with my parents, who are on the opposite coast from my wife and I. We have a large screen, good speakers and fast, relatively reliable Internet speed. We use iChat AV and the quality is superb - most of the time the session is full-screen with little or no delay, so, we sit down with coffee and chat with them as if they were across the living room coffee table.

Like many communication mediums, there is a time and place. We've found over the years that video calls are perfect for a weekly chat that is more social in nature. Now that we can share photos and even screens at times, we've also used it to update them on what we did during the week, and I sometimes can help in a technical issue for my father. I think that this scheduled, emotion-centric weekly 'reunion' makes more sense than using videoconferencing for an ad hoc, quick business call with a stranger.

As Wittgenstein said, "Don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use."

-David D.

On 30-May-08, at 10:02 AM, Alexander Baxevanis wrote:

Well, that's only partly correct. It adds little to the value of communication if the quality is bad, but in most cases it has been proven that visual cues are a significant back channel of human communication. I believe the second scenario (broadcasting what you see) is actually now implemented in most 3G mobiles, i.e. you can switch between the fron-facing & the back-facing camera. I'm sure of course that the option is deeply hidden in some menu ;-) Another thing I forgot to mention is that there is little support for the "negotiation phase". If you [trim]

-- David Drucker
Vancouver, BC

david at drucker.ca

My wife is deaf and so uses a video phone a lot. One thing to note is that the video quality is really amazing — the webcam / iChat versions are getting better and better, but the Sorenson/D-link video (D-link produces the hardware) that connects directly into your DSL line and your TV is phenomenal — perfectly smooth to the extent that you can sign, finger spell, and all sorts of stuff right there with no noticeable delay.

Greg Edwards
CEO & Founder, Eyetools Inc.
greg at eyetools.com
916.792.4538

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of David Drucker
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:15 AM
To: IxDA
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why haven't video calls taken off

The fact is, for us, Video Calls, "took off' quite some time ago, but they have a particular time, place and function: We have a weekly video conference with my parents, who are on the opposite coast from my wife and

I. We have a large screen, good speakers and fast, relatively reliable Internet speed. We use iChat AV and the quality is superb - most of the time the session is full-screen with little or no delay, so, we sit down with coffee and chat with them as if they were across the living room coffee table.

Like many communication mediums, there is a time and place. We've found over the years that video calls are perfect for a weekly chat that is more social in nature. Now that we can share photos and even screens at times, we've also used it to update them on what we did during the week, and I sometimes can help in a technical issue for my father. I think that this scheduled, emotion-centric weekly 'reunion'
makes more sense than using videoconferencing for an ad hoc, quick business call with a stranger.

As Wittgenstein said, "Don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use."

I'll second Nancy's point. Research we've done points to a desire for more of an "Eye of Fatima" type experience.

I'd also add that the etiquette of video calls is still awkward. I can tell if you are tuning out, (or more likely, am nervous that you might pick up on the fact their I'm multi-tasking), and it's hard to "end" calls gracefully.

That said, corporate video calls is coming along and (anecdotally) I'm certainly starting to experience more of them. But these are with companies who've invested a lot in the systems.

Gretchen

Original Message From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Broden Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:47 AM To: IXDA list Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why haven't video calls taken off Add to these the fact that simply seeing the other person on the other end of the line adds very little to the communication. Now, if I were to see what you see, instead of just seeing you.... On May 30, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Peyush Agarwal wrote: Alexander, I'm not sure I agree with the notion of [trim]

Nancy Broden
nancy.broden at gmail.com

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008 /06 /02 /nokia -vp -video -calling -not -successful -because -it -turns -you -ugly /

Nokia says it makes you ugly!

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=29620

Haha now THAT was unexpected. I guess I must be in the minority who are
a. pretty confident they're not ugly, and
b. don't care if others disagree : )

I think there is some truth to the unflattering wide-angle view one gets on cellphones at less than arm's distance, though I'm not convinced it's the overriding factor. The discussion on this link gives some other reasons that are pretty compelling if true - pricing, quality of video, loss of privacy, apparent inability to switch from audio-only to also-video mid-call, lack of standardized interoperability etc.

-Peyush

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008 /06 /02 /nokia -vp -video -calling -not -successful -because -it -turns -you -ugly /

Nokia says it makes you ugly!

Has anyone else noticed that pre-teen kids are less self-conscious or more comfortable with video cameras, and also more aware of the remote/asynchronous audience? I've seen some kids who, when the camera's on, do a great job of including the remote viewer along with those physically present.

Is this due to practice (webcam use, cell-phone video use)?

Are kids more practiced because they don't care about the cost of video? Because the parent/guardian's paying the bill?

-=- Jerome

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Kristopher Kinlen Sent: June 3, 2008 2:36 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why haven't video calls taken off

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008 /06 /02 /nokia -vp -video -calling -not -successful -because -it -turns -you -ugly /

Nokia says it makes you ugly!

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=29620

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

Considering the popularity of the evil bluetooth headset, maybe we don't like holding the phone up. Video phones would require you to not only hold the phone, but also hold it at a certain distance and in a specific area with a specific angle so as to frame your face in the camera.

Maybe we will see bluetooth headbands with little cameras hanging off of them soon? I for one am excited about the possible new fashion trend.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=29620

I'd like to thank everyone for responding. I've compiled the responses in the blog post below

http://sachendra.wordpress.com/2008 /06 /11 /why -havent -video -calls -mobile -video -telephony -taken -off /

It turns out the future of video calling isn't so bleak after all, it's got a few things going for it... I'll be covering those in a post FOR video calling in the next 2-3 days

Sachendra Yadav
http://sachendra.wordpress.com