3 ms·
You miss my point, I think. Everyone who has access to video calls could trivially turn them into conference calls instead. The fact that they continue to pre
by ska 6y ago
You miss my point, I think.
Everyone who has access to video calls could trivially turn them into conference calls instead. The fact that they continue to prefer video for at least some situation demonstrates that, regardless of what else is going on, they find the video calls to have some additional utility.
If your hypothesis were true, we would not observer this behavior.
- clairity 6y agono, that's trivially refuted by considering the simpler but still consistent explanation that video calls are employed to more closely mimic the contemporaneously rare in-person meetings without considering (negative) utility at all. in any case, your argument is circular because you're implicitly asserting utility must exist ('if they use video, it must have utility'), and then pointing to that just-asserted utility as (unsupported) refutation.
- ska 6y agoIt doesn’t matter what the video calls are used for - the claim was they have less utility than phone calls. I suspect you are over thinking this. People choose video over phone only sometimes because it has more utility for them - hence the hypothesis is false. Simple.