Why has video calling failed to capture the hearts and minds of the many 3G-enabled countries that have deployed the service? At
Nokia's S60 Summit in Barcelona last week, it seems that the company's VP of Category Management (whatever the heck that means) for the Nseries line took a rather blunt approach to the question, claiming that it's because the angle at which the front-facing cams are held gives callers a view of your face that "isn't very flattering." He mentioned that most webcams are typically placed just above the user's line of sight, which gives a more pleasing view of the face; obviously, that's not something you can practically do with your phone most of the time. A little controversial? Perhaps -- and it appears that other factions in the company don't share his view, with its Director of Product and Technology Marketing quick to note that video call tech hit the market before consumers were ready, and a lack of carrier support (read: reasonable pricing) has hindered uptake. Now that we think about it, though, do we really want to see up your nose while we're talking?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
youngcalihottie @ Jun 2nd 2008 9:43PM
i would say its two things.
1) Price
i dont use video share often because it's 35 cents per minute. i had a package but i didnt use all the minutes. so i was paying even more in the end. theres no unlimited plan, and that's what it needs. actually, the whole thing feels like a rip off gimmick. you are already paying for the voice minutes. and what if you already have unlimited data? so why should you have to pay ANYTHING more for video sharing? youre actually being charged THREE times for the same minutes!!! UMTS/HSDPA transmits voice and data. so youre only using 1 service for the voice, data, and video share. really the unlimited data plan should mean you dont have to pay for the video or even the minutes because youre not even using the voice network (arguably). but there really is no justification that i can see for charging outside of the data plan for the video.
2) Equipment
you have to own a video call capable phone. in the US with AT&T, i dont see why any 3G phone shouldnt be able to download an update to add the feature. or even a java app that has access to an IMS session that could easily be added. and here's the biggest problem with equipment... once you have a video call phone, then what? your friends have to have one too.
not only all that... but then you have to both have the feature added to your account. and you have to both be in a 3g area. and you have to both have an IMS connection.
but i actually do agree that the camera phone angles are aweful. even when u take pictures with your phone you hold it above you and look up.
Haxxy @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:32AM
I think someone just needs a hotter girlfriend. No need to get all sore about it.
Andy Turner @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:31AM
People don't use it because it's pointless, full stop. In a world where people text messages to each other and don't even care about hearing the other person's voice, they certainly don't care about seeing each other. Plus, in order to have a video call, you have to hold it at a distance such that you can no longer have a private conversation, you have to have the whole thing on speakerphone. Also it means you have to look at the phone whilst speaking and therefore you can't be getting on with something else at the same time. They missed a trick in speccing video calls too. It should be possible to ad-hoc switch into video mode within an already established call. It's far more likely that, in the process of explaining/telling/describing something to the other person, you might want to hold down the video button, point the handset at the house/car/dress/person/package/document etc.. in question until the other person can see it. I see that being more useful, rather than having to decide up front whether you're going to want video.
youngcalihottie @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:44PM
completely agree with ad hoc switch
its still nice to see someone when you're out of town or if its someone who doesnt live near you, but i c where ur coming from with the texts
johdaxx @ Jun 3rd 2008 6:17PM
There's really something to that. I worked on a video / powepoint eLearning tool a while ago that was based on the premise of the educator being able to show themselves to their remote students. Many profs wanted it turned off - they did want to show specific snippets of some manual process however.
The real thing driving a new feature should be its usefulness...not how good it looks on TV.
UberAdept @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:35AM
He has a point about the ugly. But its not just the angle, the compression is horrendous. I video call on skype on a laptop and the compression is bad enough. On a small screen its almost impossible to see anything in a Video call. Mobile videoconferencing or any useful videoconferencing needs HD to be successful and that needs a better network HSxPA/LTE and decent codecs. The original codecs for 3G video calling are rubbish and probably have never been updated because why invest in a service no-one uses.
In theory it should be a compelling service if 50%(or whatever it is) of communication is non-verbal.
Personally I am tired of thinking people are upset because their eyes have gone square
John @ Jun 3rd 2008 5:44AM
VP of Category Management means he is in charge of managing the higher level product groups, i.e. nseries vs. eseries vs. tablets. VP means he earns more than us :)
BluesK1d @ Jun 3rd 2008 10:55AM
One major factor that no one has pointed out is that you completely lose the partial anonymity of a phone call. You can still comfortably answer or place a voice call having just gotten out of bed, unshowered/shaven, wearing a mustard stained shirt. Once you start adding more of the 5 senses to the mix, people are less likely to feel presentable at any given time.
BluesK1d @ Jun 3rd 2008 10:59AM
Trudat. On-the-fly switching would make the concept about 11tybillion percent more attractive, puting it firmly in the "Meh" category.
mark.tang07 @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:46PM
i just want to know how many of you people have actually used 3G? Dont say its useless or it sucks when you havent used it.
Cost wise it really depends on your carrier. im with Rogers 3G and i only pay $5 a month and i get unlimited video calling.
youngcalihottie @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:44PM
thats awesome. id use it.
Riley Freeman @ Jun 3rd 2008 12:47PM
it sucks because while many places have it. u can use them with each other. i had a girl in texas cant use rogers with at&t video calling. USELESS. ur restricted to people in ur network. u should be able to call anyone in the world with a video calling capable phone
youngcalihottie @ Jun 3rd 2008 4:44PM
agreed.
Ryan Stradling Burgoyne @ Jun 4th 2008 1:40AM
Personally, if it really worked, it would be a dream come true for me. My best friend is deaf, and nothing works like a face-to-face conversation in sign language. It's a lot easier to communicate that way than when I text her. Then the only problem would be figuring out where to place the phone so my hands were free.