[LINK] The PLAN, and broadband speeds?

[Craig Sanders]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 04:17:17PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 13:26 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > You have changed "videoconferencing" into "videophones". Different
> > > things. The reality might end up being a bit of both, or neither.
> > 
> > that's because when you're talking about "videoconferencing" in the home, what
> > uou're actually talking about is videophones.
> 
> Well, that may be what you think of. It's not what I envisage.
> 
> > which, as i mentioned in my previous email, hardly anyone actually wants.
> 
> Well, you've just committed a "Vic trick". Say someone is talking about
> X, then deride X. I wasn't talking about video phones.

actually, i think you're doing the slippery redefinition trick.

what the hell else can you possibly mean when you're talking about
"videoconferencing" in the home? videoconferencing and videophones
basically means the same thing except that the "videoconferencing"
implies more expensive, professional or semi-professional equipment,
while "videophone" implies simple, cheaper consumer equipment. aside
from the expense and the quality of the equipment, both terms are
talking about essentially the same technology.


> > VC/VPs have some uses in some work places.  they're a clumsy, expensive
> > gimmick, otherwise.
> 
> Perhaps they are, now. Will they be tomorrow? Remember what a computer
> looked like in 1970....

the difference is that having computers actually offer significant
advantages (over not having them) and compelling reasons to have them.

the same can not be said of videophones vs voice-only phones. they just
don't add enough extra value/utility to most people to be worth the
extra inconvenience. sure, some people will use them. mostly people who
like gimmicks for their own sake. the fact is, though, that most people
just aren't that interested in technology, they just aren't geeks.

> > one obvious fault that i neglected to mention in my last post was that
> > it's a step backwards from the way people actually use phones now -
> > people want wireless/mobile phones that they can use in any part of the
> > house (or garage, or backyard, or roof, etc). they don't want to have
> > a phone they can only use in one fixed location in the house, because
> > that's where the screen and camera are.
> 
> This is not like you Craig. Not like you at all. Who says there will be
> one screen? One camera? Who says where they will be?

no, it's exactly like me to not get caught up in marketing hype. and
that's exactly what videophones are - "cool" sounding sci-fi gadgets
that hardly anyone wants because hardly anyone has any actual use for
them.


> > > that with good bandwidth and ease of use, videoconferencing (in
> > > some form) might be hugely popular as a home technology.
> >
> > i doubt it.
>
> That's OK. Doubt away. But who would have thought in 1970 that there
> would be general-purpose computers in every home only thirty years
> later? Who imagined World of Warcraft as they played Hunt the Wumpus?

lots of people did (well, not WoW by name, but high-resolution,
high-speed games and virtual worlds and global computer networks. it's
been a staple of SF since at least Sterling's _Shockwave Rider_[1] in
the early 70s, and especially since Gibson's _Neuromancer_[2] about 10
years later).

i can recall SF stories from the 60s where the protagonists had
hand-held or wearable (or implanted) personal computers with AI
capabilities.

[1] to summarise in one word: prophetic
[2] to summarise in one word: silly

lots of people imagined videophones too, at least as far back as the 1950s.
and they looked pretty cool in 2001: A Space Odyssey, too.


we've had the technology for videophones since at least the 1980s.  

i think it's pretty telling that even though the technology has been
around for over 2 decades that there STILL isn't any mass-market for it.
that's because hardly anyone actually wants it.

there were even some attempts to make mass-market videophone terminals,
i can remember several from the late '80s. they all flopped. you want to
know why? because hardly anyone actually wants them.

you can do videoconferencing/videophone stuff NOW with a cheap webcam
and a cheap computer and a 256 or 512kbps adsl connection. it works. you
can even do it with some mobile phones (if you want to pay stupid prices
for the priviledge). it's here, it's available, and still hardly anyone
wants it.

> I have no idea if videoconferencing will be a big home technology one
> day. The point I was trying to make was that with fast cheap
> connectivity, things become commonplace that were once the province of
> the few.

again, it's not a lack of technology or a lack of bandwidth. it's a lack
of demand.

> The only things that definitely will not happen are those that break the
> laws of physics, and those that break fundamental human behaviours.
> Everything else is at least possible. To see if it's probable, just
> imagine it being really easy and really cheap. If the picture changes,
> then that thing is probable.

it needs more than just being available, easy, and really cheap. it also
needs some demand for the product or service. and most people just have
no need or desire for videophones (and, in fact, have a desire NOT to
be on video when they're talking on the phone). making it cheaper or
easier isn't going to change that.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

"There was a time when religion ruled the
 world. It was known as The Dark Ages."
       [Ruth Hurmence Green]