Though phones that support it have been on the streets
for a few weeks now, AT&T is just now getting official with its
Video Share service. Though the feature is the first to bring 3G video calling to the US, excitement is a bit tempered by the fact that the service is one-way -- callers must manually switch feed directions to see each other, despite the fact that other UMTS networks across the globe already support two-way services. What's more, we can expect to get nickeled and dimed here: Video Share runs $4.99 a month for 25 minutes of usage, $9.99 for 60 minutes, or 35 cents per minute, regardless of whether the customer is already subscribed to a data plan. AT&T claims its "research" has shown a strong demand for stuff like this, but we think we'll wait for generation two (you know, when we can actually see each other at the same time and it's included with our already-pricey unlimited data). Look for Video Share to be available first in Atlanta, Dallas, and San Antonio, with a full rollout on AT&T's 3G network come late July.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mommy @ Jun 19th 2007 12:01PM
This is a good sign for Blackjack users. In the unreleased WM6 Blackjack update, there is a setting for Video Share. They may have held back on rolling out the update until Video Share was implemented. I think the official release of WM6 for the Blackjack should be happening soon.
greenlight @ Jun 19th 2007 12:54PM
Wow, that sounds like the most useless thing ever. I can't think of any reason why anyone would subscribe to that. Two-way video calling is unpopular enough here in Europe, I can't fathom why AT&T would attempt one-way calling. Is it because none of their phones have front-facing calling cameras?
Donald @ Jun 19th 2007 1:21PM
That's actually the main reason why it's one-way - if a phone originally had dual cameras, at&t asked to have it removed. The best example of this is the 8525.
c.Lake @ Jun 19th 2007 1:25PM
It's because AT&T and all the US Carriers insist on completely ruinting every new idea & cool piece of technology that comes along, with their constant (monthly service fee) BullSh*t.
Why do they even bother to call it "Video Share", when the service cost extra and only goes in one direction. That's not video sharing -- that would be video messaging. So basically they want $5 MORE a month for something that they are already charging you $5.00 bucks for in the first place. Good job AT&T.
wayde96 @ Jun 19th 2007 1:43PM
This nickel and dime-ing is getting str8-up ridiculous. And to only have one-way calling?!? By the time the video is actually SHARED in two-way, everyone will be so turned off to it...and that's BEFORE they see the rates that'll surely increase by then. c.Lake is right, y pay extra for a more "convenient" MMS message ??
morphius @ Jun 19th 2007 1:57PM
Sounds like a company trying to be first to market instead of waiting till it is done right.
That being said I could see some uses for this, though most of them seem to involve showing Grandma something the grandkids are doing, well that and using it to say, "Read my lips, no new fees"...
Neil @ Jun 19th 2007 8:24PM
Its the case of ATT offering something new, but making sure that you are going to pay through the nose for it. Which means that average joe is less likely to pick it up, therefore it will take that much longer for users to adopt. Hopefully ATT will wise up quickly and roll this into their existing data plans or they should roll it into minute plans.
hip2b2 @ Jun 19th 2007 8:54PM
Video Share was never really intended to be two-way. If you want two-way calling I believe subscribers can use the regular Video Call functionality. I believe this was more to broadcast video that can potentially be reached by a lot of viewers.
derX @ Jun 19th 2007 10:12PM
I really think it's a cool idea. Just think of the pragmatism of video sharing.
-->You're at a concert--whether it be a school concert or a professional entertainer's--or a movie and you want to show someone something cool over the course of like 10mins. You can't video message it because the file will be too big to send and you don't really give a rat's ass about what the person you are talking to is doing.
Is video sharing not perfect for it?
_____
Believe me, I love to bash all companies when they deserve it, but this a good idea IMHO--which is fact, mind you.
Robbie @ Jun 21st 2007 7:32PM
i think its a start. but the rates are bullshit. i was so pissed about them. it should already be included in unlimited data. do they really expect anyone to adopt it at those rates? the original idea was for it to be $18.99 for all lines on a family plan to have unlimited video share minutes without needing a data plan. dont know what happened to that idea.
and engadget, this has been out since june 3rd.