3 ms·
Poole is spot on. I'll add as a corollary, that users also don't want real-time communication that is a mirror. This is one of the reasons that videoconferenc
by bteitelb 15y ago
Poole is spot on. I'll add as a corollary, that users also don't want real-time communication that is a mirror. This is one of the reasons that videoconferencing has failed repeatedly since 1964. The entire cosmetics and fashion industries exist to provide avatars for when we must endure the gaze. And yet, we continue to work on videoconferencing and tele-immersion. Sigh.
- demallien 15y agoWhat on earth makes you think that video conferencing has failed? I might not use it for business calls, or to organise an evening out with friends, but I use Skype video every weekend to catch up with my family... Sure, it doesn't replace every type of telephone call, but it certainly does replace some.
- bteitelb 15y agoYour reply illustrates exactly how it has failed. You use it only to catch up with family...every weekend. These are the people for whom we do not bother putting on makeup or even our clothes sometimes. Depending on demographics, per capita voice minutes (though falling) are still 500-1000 per month; and you are spending maybe a 10th of that on video calls with family. Judged against 50+ years of heavy R&D and promotion of this communications medium, I'd have to call that failure.