Facebook Is Working on a Video Chat Device(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Facebook Is Working on a Video Chat Device
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-01/facebook-is-said-to-work-on-video-chat-device-in-hardware-push
84 comments
This reminds me of that infamous "Show HN: Dropbox" thread.
It is 2017 and I don't know of any video conference system or software that "just works" everywhere, all the time, under all bandwidth conditions. If Facebook thinks they can pull this off by tight control on hardware, they will sell like hotcakes.
It is 2017 and I don't know of any video conference system or software that "just works" everywhere, all the time, under all bandwidth conditions. If Facebook thinks they can pull this off by tight control on hardware, they will sell like hotcakes.
I feel like if I had to video conference with one of my friends running Linux we would just use ffmpeg and ffplay.
It probably wouldn't be anymore reliable than all the other conference software but at least it doesn't drag a mountain of bullshit and lockin with it.
We just use email and in person meetings though, I still don't quite get the point behind video conferencing.
It probably wouldn't be anymore reliable than all the other conference software but at least it doesn't drag a mountain of bullshit and lockin with it.
We just use email and in person meetings though, I still don't quite get the point behind video conferencing.
My problem with video/audio chat solutions has never been the hardware, generally it can be chalked up to flaky networking somewhere along the line to one of the participants - solutions were usually rebooting a home router or switching to 3G/4G. Best effort packet networking is just not ideal for real-time streams.
Have you tried WhatsApp, Line, WeChat, Telegram apps? They have made pretty good impression in terms of their quality.
> Whyever would I want or need a dedicated video chat device? Why would anyone?
So Facebook can see what's in your house and on your body and deliver those relevant, targeted ads you so dearly crave.
So Facebook can see what's in your house and on your body and deliver those relevant, targeted ads you so dearly crave.
> see what's in your house and on your body and deliver those relevant, targeted ads you so dearly crave.
"This guy has a vacuum cleaner. Let's recommend him more vacuum cleaners to buy!"
"This guy has a vacuum cleaner. Let's recommend him more vacuum cleaners to buy!"
> "This guy has a vacuum cleaner. Let's recommend him more vacuum cleaners to buy!"
Even though every single one of the platforms claim to be using cutting edge tech for targeted ads but all of them suck. I don't see them improving even if you give them a guided tour of your home including closets
More info - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755498
Even though every single one of the platforms claim to be using cutting edge tech for targeted ads but all of them suck. I don't see them improving even if you give them a guided tour of your home including closets
More info - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755498
I love ads that are targeted to me personally!
It might be interesting to have AR product advertising. Using your phone's camera and scanning your house/apartment perhaps you see a TV you are interested in buying hanging on your wall. Or a cool new car in your driveway. Maybe they could even be interactive and you could open the hood/trunk/doors etc.
I feel like the value in AR lies more in knowing where the user is, in proximity to what, and trying to draw them somewhere than necessarily showing them virtual overlays of items already in that physical space.
In other words, you use your phone's camera to do whatever, and the phone notices you linger at a window or a billboard (by tracking your eye movements and retinal responses.) You get home, and suggested items are virtually added to your living room.
Maybe you walk past a clothing store and it adds a new suit to your reflection.
Or AR games that require you to move past physical ads or storefronts, and take pictures of them.
In other words, you use your phone's camera to do whatever, and the phone notices you linger at a window or a billboard (by tracking your eye movements and retinal responses.) You get home, and suggested items are virtually added to your living room.
Maybe you walk past a clothing store and it adds a new suit to your reflection.
Or AR games that require you to move past physical ads or storefronts, and take pictures of them.
That sounds like a hellish dystopia.
Probably not as dystopian as the pornography industry is going to get with AR, VR, dolls, etc.
There can be good utility for ads without being dystopian. Like furniture sets you want buy to preview in your new empty apartment - not items you are totally uninterested in buying. I'm sure there will be countless ideas to get ads on AR pretty soon that will be unaggressive and jive well psychologically
There can be good utility for ads without being dystopian. Like furniture sets you want buy to preview in your new empty apartment - not items you are totally uninterested in buying. I'm sure there will be countless ideas to get ads on AR pretty soon that will be unaggressive and jive well psychologically
The day you can point your AR goggles at your SO and turn them into the anime/fandom/porn character of your choice, is the day AR porn gets its killer app.
It's also the day the doll industry blows up (no pun intended) - because if you need AR to be turned on by your SO, there'll be a lot of separations.
ya but at least ar can put whatever you want over the doll!
[deleted]
Cisco charges an arm and a leg for its videoconferencing devices, which are basically fancy versions of this. I'm okay with Facebook trying out a cheaper version for the average consumer. If they fail, it's their money; if they succeed and the product is game-changing, the world more or less gets better.
(I realize this is where people bring up 1984 which I think is just cynically off-topic.)
(I realize this is where people bring up 1984 which I think is just cynically off-topic.)
> Cisco charges an arm and a leg for its videoconferencing devices
Sure, and the—unstated, admittedly—presumption was that FB was targeting consumer not enterprise use. I understand why enterprise videoconferencing systems exist.
> I'm okay with Facebook trying out a cheaper version for the average consumer.
I'm okay with them pursuing it. I'm just asking what the need is it serves.
Sure, and the—unstated, admittedly—presumption was that FB was targeting consumer not enterprise use. I understand why enterprise videoconferencing systems exist.
> I'm okay with Facebook trying out a cheaper version for the average consumer.
I'm okay with them pursuing it. I'm just asking what the need is it serves.
That's pretty straight-forward.
Facebook views its mission as connecting people.
Other tech companies are heavily investing into hardware for the home including communications, along with various in-house services relating to AI, including Microsoft, Google, Sony, Amazon and Apple. That category will continue to rapidly expand, the products and services will get more and more powerful/capable. That hardware, such as the Echo, is a direct threat to Facebook's social monopoly, specifically because these devices will keep getting more powerful and keep reaching for nearby functions to assimilate. Those nearby functions will include numerous social & media aspects (two of Facebook's foundations now are images and video).
Why did Facebook aggressively target chat apps (WhatsApp, FB messenger) & photo apps (Instagram)? Because they were nearby functions to their core social product. It was very, very well understood that Instagram had the potential to expand into Facebook's territory, using images as the beachhead. Facebook is guaranteed to be concerned about the same concept at play with the devices being deployed into people's homes that are basically AI footholds. Today? No, today does not matter in that sense; this is all about the next 5, 10, 20 years and what these in-home devices will be capable of and what people will use them for.
Facebook views its mission as connecting people.
Other tech companies are heavily investing into hardware for the home including communications, along with various in-house services relating to AI, including Microsoft, Google, Sony, Amazon and Apple. That category will continue to rapidly expand, the products and services will get more and more powerful/capable. That hardware, such as the Echo, is a direct threat to Facebook's social monopoly, specifically because these devices will keep getting more powerful and keep reaching for nearby functions to assimilate. Those nearby functions will include numerous social & media aspects (two of Facebook's foundations now are images and video).
Why did Facebook aggressively target chat apps (WhatsApp, FB messenger) & photo apps (Instagram)? Because they were nearby functions to their core social product. It was very, very well understood that Instagram had the potential to expand into Facebook's territory, using images as the beachhead. Facebook is guaranteed to be concerned about the same concept at play with the devices being deployed into people's homes that are basically AI footholds. Today? No, today does not matter in that sense; this is all about the next 5, 10, 20 years and what these in-home devices will be capable of and what people will use them for.
> Facebook views its mission as connecting people.
No, Facebooks mission is to collect demographic data in as much detail as possible and to use that to sell ads.
Connecting people is a sideshow to all of this.
No, Facebooks mission is to collect demographic data in as much detail as possible and to use that to sell ads.
Connecting people is a sideshow to all of this.
> No, Facebooks mission is to collect demographic data in as much detail as possible and to use that to sell ads.
I never said it was their business model. You're confusing two separate aspects of what they do. They're directly related, they're not the same thing.
Facebook's mission is to connect people. That's what enables their business model. The former came before the latter, by necessity. They had a lot of connected users before they had a business model. But hey, try building a $500 billion social network business, before you start connecting up the users, see how it works out.
I never said it was their business model. You're confusing two separate aspects of what they do. They're directly related, they're not the same thing.
Facebook's mission is to connect people. That's what enables their business model. The former came before the latter, by necessity. They had a lot of connected users before they had a business model. But hey, try building a $500 billion social network business, before you start connecting up the users, see how it works out.
> But hey, try building a $500 billion social network business, before you start connecting up the users, see how it works out.
Guess what, I did. We reached about a million monthly active users at some point which was quite the high point, but still that's a drop in the bucket compared to where the web is today. Still, back then 100K active users per day put us well in the top 500 of all websites.
Needless to say I fell a bit short of the mark of making a $500B company but we really were trying to connect people and video chat was exactly the medium that we used. And no, we did not build up user profiles to track their behavior, not because we could not but because we felt that was not right.
So instead, we charged for the service and eventually it went under.
Personally I will not use any of these services unless I pay for them and my data is not retained or mined. Zuckerberg is the last person on the planet I would trust with my data.
That's also why I use plain old SMS rather than whatsapp and email or IRC rather than Gmail or Google hangouts or similar.
Guess what, I did. We reached about a million monthly active users at some point which was quite the high point, but still that's a drop in the bucket compared to where the web is today. Still, back then 100K active users per day put us well in the top 500 of all websites.
Needless to say I fell a bit short of the mark of making a $500B company but we really were trying to connect people and video chat was exactly the medium that we used. And no, we did not build up user profiles to track their behavior, not because we could not but because we felt that was not right.
So instead, we charged for the service and eventually it went under.
Personally I will not use any of these services unless I pay for them and my data is not retained or mined. Zuckerberg is the last person on the planet I would trust with my data.
That's also why I use plain old SMS rather than whatsapp and email or IRC rather than Gmail or Google hangouts or similar.
The organizations whom Cisco sells these expensive devices to also tend to have bandwidth several orders of magnitude above what the average consumer has at home.
When I was working in a different city and separated from my family and friends for months at a time, I always thought it would be cool to have this always-on video chat device that wouldn't really be used for direct chatting, but more like leaving the door open so if we're bored, we can just "bump" into each other.
It's strange, but you sometimes miss the "mundane" parts of life. Especially if you are on assignment for several months, there might not be much to say day after day, but just having some company is a nice feeling.
I can also see how it would be helpful for remote teams. If these devices were just on all the time and team members could peer into what others were doing or listen in on spontaneous jokes.
Of course I know there are ways to do this now with existing solutions, but it's more of a hassle to get it setup and also to automatically reconnect if there are network problems.
It's strange, but you sometimes miss the "mundane" parts of life. Especially if you are on assignment for several months, there might not be much to say day after day, but just having some company is a nice feeling.
I can also see how it would be helpful for remote teams. If these devices were just on all the time and team members could peer into what others were doing or listen in on spontaneous jokes.
Of course I know there are ways to do this now with existing solutions, but it's more of a hassle to get it setup and also to automatically reconnect if there are network problems.
> I can also see how it would be helpful for remote teams.
We had this arrangement once. A cube of four of us, had a big always-on tele-screen dialled into our remote team (four guys in another city). Fun at first but then we had to mute it (the background noise in both directions was very distracting, annoying to other employees). So we ended up in a farcical scenario of having it always on but relying on waving at the camera to get someone's attention, or IMing them, to unmute :)
We had this arrangement once. A cube of four of us, had a big always-on tele-screen dialled into our remote team (four guys in another city). Fun at first but then we had to mute it (the background noise in both directions was very distracting, annoying to other employees). So we ended up in a farcical scenario of having it always on but relying on waving at the camera to get someone's attention, or IMing them, to unmute :)
I think it's so we can create more plastic pollution when the device is obsolete after 6 months.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/ocean-plastic-pat...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/ocean-plastic-pat...
Like this? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/holoportati...
(Disclosure: My project)
(Disclosure: My project)
You don't need one. But I bet you that someone who doesn't know much better and has a general love of consuming things could be convinced that if they don't get one, they will be missing out on all the fun things their friends are doing.
Why would you want to buy an AI speaker vs. just using your iPad, Mac or iPhone.
OH wait in that instance because Siri's AI is horrid.
OH wait in that instance because Siri's AI is horrid.
[deleted]
Are you trying to suggest that video calling on an Apple device is terrible?
Or are you just kicking at Siri, which isn't relevant here?
Using Apple devices for video call seems to be extremely popular.
Or are you just kicking at Siri, which isn't relevant here?
Using Apple devices for video call seems to be extremely popular.
huh... Facebook is making a smart speaker like Alexa. Hence my Siri comment.
Siri is no good compared to the competition and I use to use her daily from 2011 to 2016.
Siri is no good compared to the competition and I use to use her daily from 2011 to 2016.
I'm all for this. We recently purchased some Echo Shows, one for us and one for my grandparents and the Amazon experience to setup communication between the two was absolutely painful.
First both need an Amazon account which, okay that's not so bad. But now both Amazon accounts need to log into the Amazon Alexa mobile app which my grandparents can not do as they do not have a mobile phone with apps on it so, instead, I have to use their login on my phone. Then I had to register their cell phone with their account on my mobile phone because they can't do the text message verification via their landline that they've had for 30 years and to top it all off now their Echo has all of the contacts from my phone because it doesn't let you manually manage contacts per Amazon account, no they have to be copied directly from your phone.
So if they can make it so all they need is a Facebook account and now they can video chat with us or any of their friends and family? That would be perfect for my grandparents.
First both need an Amazon account which, okay that's not so bad. But now both Amazon accounts need to log into the Amazon Alexa mobile app which my grandparents can not do as they do not have a mobile phone with apps on it so, instead, I have to use their login on my phone. Then I had to register their cell phone with their account on my mobile phone because they can't do the text message verification via their landline that they've had for 30 years and to top it all off now their Echo has all of the contacts from my phone because it doesn't let you manually manage contacts per Amazon account, no they have to be copied directly from your phone.
So if they can make it so all they need is a Facebook account and now they can video chat with us or any of their friends and family? That would be perfect for my grandparents.
Right, and for those of us who don't want to use a Facebook account? The world is lacking good, adopted implementations of open networking.
I've used Jitsi Meet self-hosted style.
It's not trivial to setup, but it's not the worst thing either. It worked really well afterward.
https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/
Also there are WebRTC based sites that don't require logins
appear.in
rabb.it
Everyone is hooked on the big names and their requirements, when alternatives exist.
It's not trivial to setup, but it's not the worst thing either. It worked really well afterward.
https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/
Also there are WebRTC based sites that don't require logins
appear.in
rabb.it
Everyone is hooked on the big names and their requirements, when alternatives exist.
Jitsi also runs one that you can use without an account. From jitsi.org's "Try Jitsi" button: https://meet.jit.si
You can also make up random links and jump straight into a room, like: https://meet.jit.si/CleverPhrase
You can also make up random links and jump straight into a room, like: https://meet.jit.si/CleverPhrase
What's wrong with just making a disposable single use facebook account.
They generally ask for a phone number nowadays for new accounts, so you'd need a new number for each one (or reuse the same one, which defeats the purpose of the disposable accounts).
Profiling, I'd rather not give any datapoints to FB besides, they could add to my shadow profile.
> So if they can make it so all they need is a Facebook account and now they can video chat with us or any of their friends and family? That would be perfect for my grandparents.
You can already do that, though. Facebook has built-in videochat on all platforms. I'm not clear how this device is substantially better than videochatting on your laptop.
You can already do that, though. Facebook has built-in videochat on all platforms. I'm not clear how this device is substantially better than videochatting on your laptop.
> I'm not clear how this device is substantially better than videochatting on your laptop.
That's because you're knowledgable about technology. My grandparents are incredibly smart people but doing anything on the laptop, mobile devices; pretty much they always find a way to go down the wrong path. Always.
But a device like Echo Show (once it's setup) or a dedicate Facebook chat device? That's push button, done. Easy. No update process to deal with, no random dialogs, no spammy bloatware from terrible software vendors to confuse, etc.
For those still in society but do not have the firmest grasp of technology do still want to participate where they can. Sometimes it's not made easy enough to do, in my opinion and experience and one of the best reasons for a dedicated device such as this.
That's because you're knowledgable about technology. My grandparents are incredibly smart people but doing anything on the laptop, mobile devices; pretty much they always find a way to go down the wrong path. Always.
But a device like Echo Show (once it's setup) or a dedicate Facebook chat device? That's push button, done. Easy. No update process to deal with, no random dialogs, no spammy bloatware from terrible software vendors to confuse, etc.
For those still in society but do not have the firmest grasp of technology do still want to participate where they can. Sometimes it's not made easy enough to do, in my opinion and experience and one of the best reasons for a dedicated device such as this.
My impression is that even thumbfingered old grannies have mostly figured out Facebook, though. I'm sure there's a market for people who want to use videochat but can't manage even the very simplest of computer operations; I'm just not sure it's a very large market.
I suppose I wish them luck, in any case, if it can make a few people's lives better.
I suppose I wish them luck, in any case, if it can make a few people's lives better.
Why do you/your grandparents think you need this? I would never go though such pain for any kind of online service.
We live across the country from them so we wanted to setup an easy to use way to video chat with them. We had setup Skype for them before we left but every single time they had issues with audio not working and other various problems.
With the Echo Show they simply say "Call BinaryIdiot" and it works. That's it.
So yes the setup was awful but we wanted a way for them, who are not tech savvy in the least, to be able to quickly and easily video call us whenever they wanted.
With the Echo Show they simply say "Call BinaryIdiot" and it works. That's it.
So yes the setup was awful but we wanted a way for them, who are not tech savvy in the least, to be able to quickly and easily video call us whenever they wanted.
Question, just out of curiosity: now that it is setup will either your parents or you use it to chat with someone else or will it remain a point-to-point thing whose main attractive was it worked smoothly for your parents?
I worked in Videoconferencing in the 90's and the advent of better CPU and processing power come the turn of the century with netmeeting, many in the industry thought the days of dedicated hardware and expensive MCU (Multipoint control units) was soon to be usurped. Nearly 20 years on and yet to see that killer video conferencing feature.
Of note was also privy to early testing of Three (UK 3G mobile network) tests for video and whilst managed to stream the Matrix in the early days as a test, that never took of either and that was more due to the costs of data connections, an issue very much moot these days (least in the UK).
One area that often lets down videoconferencing at the consumer level are the camera's and the environment the user uses them in and gets down to lighting. But again, no killer, easy to use consumer solution has come and taken the market by storm.
Sure many point to point video solutions on offer and used but no universal standard multipoint as easy as sending an email to multiple people is jumping out.
With that, I wish Facebook good luck and they do have the user base to drive this, but I'm not sure it is a feature as high in demand for consumer users as many wish or feel it is.
I can only put this down again to the environments such consumer systems (your mobile say) are used in and whilst the processing power is there to alleviate much of this, that has still to come to fruition as a user friendly reliable experience.
Of note was also privy to early testing of Three (UK 3G mobile network) tests for video and whilst managed to stream the Matrix in the early days as a test, that never took of either and that was more due to the costs of data connections, an issue very much moot these days (least in the UK).
One area that often lets down videoconferencing at the consumer level are the camera's and the environment the user uses them in and gets down to lighting. But again, no killer, easy to use consumer solution has come and taken the market by storm.
Sure many point to point video solutions on offer and used but no universal standard multipoint as easy as sending an email to multiple people is jumping out.
With that, I wish Facebook good luck and they do have the user base to drive this, but I'm not sure it is a feature as high in demand for consumer users as many wish or feel it is.
I can only put this down again to the environments such consumer systems (your mobile say) are used in and whilst the processing power is there to alleviate much of this, that has still to come to fruition as a user friendly reliable experience.
I have a SIP network among some friends of mine, and it is awesome. The quality and latency are superb, and the resource usage is acceptable. The problem is peering with all of the lazy third-party networks. It seems something always goes wrong when I try to SIP some random Cisco system outside of my infrastructure. The client applications and libraries could also use some TLC.
I have a feeling that WebRTC portals are going to be the main way SIP calls are made as time goes forward, so somebody has to do it, I'd be glad to devote my life to it if I could make a salary and do it as open source.
I think SIP could be great, if some focus were put on interoperability and service providers. We really need something you could rightly call the GMail of SIP to show the world that open standard n-to-n video conferencing can be done well.
I have a feeling that WebRTC portals are going to be the main way SIP calls are made as time goes forward, so somebody has to do it, I'd be glad to devote my life to it if I could make a salary and do it as open source.
I think SIP could be great, if some focus were put on interoperability and service providers. We really need something you could rightly call the GMail of SIP to show the world that open standard n-to-n video conferencing can be done well.
Wow, I haven't run into refugee from that videoconferencing era in a while, I worked at VTel in the 90's in Austin.
I worked for a company called TopTel, managed the VC networks for ICL, DOH and few others, dealt with many Telco's and bridge companies who's names escape me at the time. international VC and dialing the extra 0 for ISDN lines to make sure they didn't route over satellite and then the fun of switched ISDN (North American ISDN standard with it's bit stealing 56k lines over the dedicated D channel 64k lines). Fun times.
One aspect of VC was you could tell if a network link (leased lines) was not upto scratch as you would see bit error, unlike network data, which would happily gloss over such odd bit errors. Other fun and games was ISDN circuits being stolen due to engineers repatching lines of little used circuits and then when the ISDN would lock up and that would often be that the bit error count hit a limit. You would call up, get the telco to test the line/circuit and low and behold it would be working again, this was due to the test resetting the error count. Had a neat way of testing lines using my 2G mobile on the Orange network, in that if I called an ISDN line the way it terminated the call would indicate if it was up or was errored, or busy.
But my funniest story would be spending 30 minutes trying to resolve an issue with a PicturTel setup with some French chap and why the audio from his end was not working, turned out he was sat upon the microphone.
One aspect of VC was you could tell if a network link (leased lines) was not upto scratch as you would see bit error, unlike network data, which would happily gloss over such odd bit errors. Other fun and games was ISDN circuits being stolen due to engineers repatching lines of little used circuits and then when the ISDN would lock up and that would often be that the bit error count hit a limit. You would call up, get the telco to test the line/circuit and low and behold it would be working again, this was due to the test resetting the error count. Had a neat way of testing lines using my 2G mobile on the Orange network, in that if I called an ISDN line the way it terminated the call would indicate if it was up or was errored, or busy.
But my funniest story would be spending 30 minutes trying to resolve an issue with a PicturTel setup with some French chap and why the audio from his end was not working, turned out he was sat upon the microphone.
My company and I could have used your knowledge! Got sent to Europe to debug some problems where we had an ISDN card from a third party installed in our systems and got to visit UK, Germany, Belgium, and France to look at different issues.
We've had the prospect of video chat for decades. 2001 A Space Odyssey showed us that it would be the de facto way to talk to our families. Tom Selleck promised us in the early 1990s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8) that AT&T would bring it to us. And when we finally got it, most people said, "meh". Almost all chat platforms have some sort of video integration, and for the most part, its acceptance is lukewarm. Perhaps it's because it doesn't work amazingly well? Perhaps its because people really don't want to have to get dressed to have a conversation? Perhaps I'm just not in the right crowd?
FaceTime seems to be way more popular than most realize. Anecdotally, my children use it daily to talk with grandparents and cousins and I see people on public transportation using it in place of telephone calls (makes more sense there because they're not driving). And, I use it when traveling to talk to my family.
The issue going forward is the lack of standardization across protocols. Despite Apple's mention in the keynote when FaceTime was announced that it would be open, FaceTime is iOS/Mac only for now. And, I don't see Facebook's playing nice with Amazon's, etc.
The issue going forward is the lack of standardization across protocols. Despite Apple's mention in the keynote when FaceTime was announced that it would be open, FaceTime is iOS/Mac only for now. And, I don't see Facebook's playing nice with Amazon's, etc.
It's iOS/Mac only because it has to go through Apple server. This is because of this lawsuit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20236114
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20236114
Interestingly, it seems the company they lost to is effectively a publicly traded patent troll
And it has a market cap of just over 200 million dollars [1]. Makes me wonder why Apple wouldn't simply buy the company. They can more than easily afford it.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VHC
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VHC
If I were feeling vindictive I wouldn't want to reward a patent troll by making them multimillionaires. I'd rather sue them out of existence...
> makes more sense there because they're not driving
I've driven next to people on the highway who were on a Facetime call with their phone resting on the dash in front of the speedometer, so that is a thing that people do, unfortunately.
I've driven next to people on the highway who were on a Facetime call with their phone resting on the dash in front of the speedometer, so that is a thing that people do, unfortunately.
A lot of people I know, so this is very anecdotal, don't even like to talk on the phone anymore, they prefer texting. I do most of my video chatting at work with some of our remote co-workers and that's mainly because we want to screen share. If it wasn't for the screen share (we use google hangouts) then we'd probably never video chat.
My theory about why people would rather just text than voice/video chat is that it consumes to much effort and commitment of time. People want to be able to quickly switch contexts and apps. If you're talking or video chatting then you have to be more focused and your phone is occupied during that process.
Also I think there's just an abundance of ways to communicate with anyone around the world now that video chat is not as special as it once seemed. I tried counting how many ways I could be contacts and my list was long.
My theory about why people would rather just text than voice/video chat is that it consumes to much effort and commitment of time. People want to be able to quickly switch contexts and apps. If you're talking or video chatting then you have to be more focused and your phone is occupied during that process.
Also I think there's just an abundance of ways to communicate with anyone around the world now that video chat is not as special as it once seemed. I tried counting how many ways I could be contacts and my list was long.
As another anecdote, a lot of people I know prefer to call than text. It's a good way to get an immediate response and plan things quickly, rather than trying to play scheduling tennis over text.
Video was also the feature that was going to justify the 3G spectrum auction prices. In the UK many billions were paid by the telcos and part of the marketing promise at the time was the then 'obvious' application of video calling. We would all be chatting by video on our flip phones, not sending txt messages. txt messages were an accidental phenomenon as I understand it, something squeezed into the chatter needed for the phone to stay in touch with base station.
Cameras in phones by Nokia et al. from 2005 are with this in mind, front facing, VGA video that is handled at the phone level as a video call:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N70
There is no 'app' that puts the video in a http stream somehow, this was baked in functionality, now abandoned by telcos.
Yet there is the selfie phenomenon, again something that few imagined to be the thing it is. Cameras used to point outwards, now they point at the owner. I would not be surprised if cheap phones only come with selfie cameras soon, much like how laptops only come with 'selfie cameras'.
A large tablet for just doing Facebook and Facebook video does not sound portable enough for what it does, 'phablets' are better on the commute, why carry another device? Sounds to me as if Facebook are trying to hard on all the failed VR apps.
Cameras in phones by Nokia et al. from 2005 are with this in mind, front facing, VGA video that is handled at the phone level as a video call:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N70
There is no 'app' that puts the video in a http stream somehow, this was baked in functionality, now abandoned by telcos.
Yet there is the selfie phenomenon, again something that few imagined to be the thing it is. Cameras used to point outwards, now they point at the owner. I would not be surprised if cheap phones only come with selfie cameras soon, much like how laptops only come with 'selfie cameras'.
A large tablet for just doing Facebook and Facebook video does not sound portable enough for what it does, 'phablets' are better on the commute, why carry another device? Sounds to me as if Facebook are trying to hard on all the failed VR apps.
Obligatory link to David Foster Wallace's prediction of this http://kottke.org/10/06/david-foster-wallace-on-iphone-4s-fa...
There's also Bell Lab's "picturephone" from the 19060s(!), that despite market research showing would be a hit, ended up being quite a market failure.
http://ethw.org/Picturephone
http://ethw.org/Picturephone
One thing was pricing (back when UMTS was all about selling video calls, the operators slapped on an higher charge), another was that until recently the handheld screens (never mind cameras) were very low resolution.
These days however it is all data.
These days however it is all data.
When Three launched in Sweden, they made video calls free for an introductory period. Adoption was still abysmal.
Most people I know that don't live near their parents use video chat to talk to them.
My parents are luddites, so I still ring their landline.
My parents are luddites, so I still ring their landline.
I must say the Video chat in Amazon Echo Show is very interesting from my experience using it over the past few weeks when talking to my family in other side of the world. The Mics are so good that they can hear them from pretty much anywhere in my 800 sqft home.
It would be very interesting to see how this device competes. The features i would love to have is a 360 Camera attached to a large screen. with Multiple Mics / Good Speakers. Ability to seamlessly which to multiple screens based on where I am.
It would be very interesting to see how this device competes. The features i would love to have is a 360 Camera attached to a large screen. with Multiple Mics / Good Speakers. Ability to seamlessly which to multiple screens based on where I am.
The Mics are so good that they can hear them from pretty much anywhere in my 800 sqft home.
So can The Others.
So can The Others.
Do you trust a Facebook camera on your kitchen counter/night stand/living room table? I feel like they haven't done much for themselves(in terms of branding) as a privacy-friendly company to the point where technophobes are going to be comfortable setting these up in their homes.
No kidding.
My twitter feed is full of people pointing out their CEO (Zuckerberg) tapes over his webcams, but now wants users to put this in their homes.
My twitter feed is full of people pointing out their CEO (Zuckerberg) tapes over his webcams, but now wants users to put this in their homes.
Remember when we had a unified communication network?
I can use my phone for video chat over Facetime. Or Facebook Messenger. Or Skype. Or Whatsapp. Or Google Hangouts (haven't installed Duo. yet)
Signal and Line can both do audio calls but not video. Yet.
I think with the union of all those networks I should be able to do a video chat with 95% of my contacts.
When's SIP taking over the world again?
I can use my phone for video chat over Facetime. Or Facebook Messenger. Or Skype. Or Whatsapp. Or Google Hangouts (haven't installed Duo. yet)
Signal and Line can both do audio calls but not video. Yet.
I think with the union of all those networks I should be able to do a video chat with 95% of my contacts.
When's SIP taking over the world again?
The only way we get big dogs to play along to everyone's benefit is by force, sadly. If not then they will always attempt to carve up fiefs.
Oh sweat progress, now we can leave all the text based internet and chat-apps behind us, finally able to identify people again not by there words, but by there colour, there pattern of speach and the wealth of there surroundings.
If there ever was progress that should move humanity backwards this is how it looks.
If there ever was progress that should move humanity backwards this is how it looks.
This move (along with the smart speaker), might help put 'M' at an equal footing with Alexa, Cortana, Siri, Google Assistant and the likes in terms of media recognition. Somehow, M is not brought up as often when AI assistants are mentioned.
Instead of articles about what Facebook is working on, I'd be more interested in what they're not working on at this point. I can't think of an area they aren't trying to disrupt.
> I can't think of an area they aren't trying to disrupt.
Disrupt is a strange way of putting it when they are an incumbent copying and implementing exactly what others have been doing for a long time. To me disruption means a significant change from how things are currently done in a given market -- a change that also changes the paradigm for how things are done in the market.
Disrupt is a strange way of putting it when they are an incumbent copying and implementing exactly what others have been doing for a long time. To me disruption means a significant change from how things are currently done in a given market -- a change that also changes the paradigm for how things are done in the market.
My guess: it's something like a chrome stick with a connected webcam you place at the top of your tv.
Hmm anyone else thinking of Pied Piper?
Whyever would I want or need a dedicated video chat device? Why would anyone?
Also, a laptop-sized (so, I guess, somewhere between 10” and 19”) isn't going to make people feel like they are in the same room.
I suppose if you wedded a 3D camera to a HoloLens-like AR system, with some clever software, that might make people feel like they are in the same room.