Nokia VP explains why video calling is not more popular
By Will Park on Monday, June 9th, 2008 at 9:23 PM PST In Announcements, Nokia
Some technologies are just released before their time. And, because of a certain technology’s early arrival, consumers (or the industry itself) just isn’t ready to adopt new products or services until they’ve been ignored in to oblivion. Now, that’s not to say that video calling, video conferencing, whatever you want to call it, will go by the wayside, but a Nokia (NYSE: NOK) VP recently explained why video calling just isn’t as popular as you would think.
Apparently, the angle from which most people would frame their faces in a video call (from about mid-chest height and angled upward towards the face) just “isn’t very flattering” – at least that’s the way Nokia’s Ukko Lappalainen, VP Category Manager for Nokia N-series sees it. In other words, video calling hasn’t picked up as much steam as, say SMS text messaging because people just plain look uglier less pretty in a video call than they would in person, on a webcam, or on a regular voice call (obviously). The more flattering angle is apparently a higher, downward-looking camera angle – like we see with most webcam setups.
On the flip-side, much like Betamax, video calling could have just been introduced too early and costs a bit too much. Unlike Betamax, there’s no competing inferior alternative to video calling, so the bulk of video calling’s less than stellar adoption rate could be attributed to some carriers’ too-high costs.
In either case, how many of you out there actually use video calling on a regular basis? How many don’t use it because of costs versus how they look on camera? The question goes out mainly to non-US residents for obvious reasons.
[Via: TechDigest]
IMHO the two biggest reasons are;
i) the quality sucks – apparently this is a protocol issue and that once the Telco’s allow for and the handset manufacturers build in proper video conferencing with a codec like say h.264 then this will always be an issue. By all accounts a lot of the modern smartphones are just about capable of handling a more Skype’esque experience – think of Qik for example. Imagine a two way Qik and you’re kinda there.
But, and this is the next problem…
ii) the cost is just wayyyyyy to high. The premium for video is a joke and unfortunately the cost of mobile data not much better – yet.
Take Vodafone here in NZ, last time I looked they wanted NZ$10 a month for 30 minutes of video. Of course their data plans are not any more the generous with a fairly basic 200Mb running up NZ$40 a month, and you’ll rip through that really fast with video.
I know and accept that the thought of more data is scary for the mobile operators, being a dumb pipe is something they really struggle with.
Personally I use video calling when away to contact the family, but sparingly. I’d rather crank up Skype at the moment.
Those front-mounted video cameras may have found their saviour in Qik, particularly if you’re using the text chat feature:
http://qik.com/
i agree that people really look ugly with the camera looking up on you..
the people at the other line would have to suffer your snot filled flaring nostrils and down casted eyeballs.. you’ll look freakishly stupid..
i hope there’s an alternative for better angling.. but.. bah..
The cost is way too high and quality just aint worth it and so It is surplus to requirements. If they made a new Nseries without one I dnt think it will be missed and according to the Nokia VP he would agree. So then why not scrap it to make space for something new in the device or reduce thickness.
It’s really annoying to have to keep aiming the phone at yourself. I like to keep it in my pocket..
I don’t use it because Nokia keeps ignoring Canada!
Anyways, my face is flattering no matter what angle you look at it just hit up my facebook and you’ll see
Video calling is really taking off on the web – and only recently. Look at tokbox (person to person), qik + flixwagon (1 way livecasting), woome (speed dating) + plenty of adult webcam apps (obviously!) and loads of others for innovative examples.
The natural extension for this is mobile – and it WILL happen (though it will obviously be niche and not replace voice voice calling). The quality is acceptable over today’s 3G circuit-switched networks and if latency + other issues can be solved then SIP based solutions are bound to emerge over packet-switched (IP) networks.
Hold in there!
The real reason is that videocalls don’t add anything valuable to users. It’s easier and cheaper to just call a voicecall. Video is just a “See what I can do” feature.
Its the cost that puts the majority of people off.
The only one additional point I’d like to make is that videocalls add real values only on bigger distances. I mean a “tourist use case”: when you have friends/family sitting in their homes and watching your broadcast from another country’s streets, like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or Giza Pyramids in Egypt.
This is not happening, due to lack of operator integration (roaming agreements not in place).
Heck, you can’t even send MMS between many countries!
Not to talk about 3G. If it continues this way, 3G will be a past, not living up to expectations, not fully used to it’s potential.
The only two real “killer apps” for 3G is ‘fast internet’ and ‘video calling’. The ‘fast internet’ is, in fact, a competitor, even to the second one.
If inter-operator relationships (roaming setup) do not improve fast, 3G will be a toast, and will probably be turned into a fast pipe for IP-based services.
Those DARPA/IETF guys were right when they focused on the inter-operations between networks (inter-net)…
Video calls would be so great to talk to family I don’t get to see that often, like nieces and nephews who grow up fast.
Bring the cost down, make it idiot proof to set up and we are in business. This should be a no brainer and I don’t buy the Nokia excuse. His view is a bit narrow of the uses (already mention by many).
here in canada Rogers charge 5$ for 50min or unlimited video call on a 3year contract.i dont use it that much simply because i dont know enough people with 3g phones…i think the front camera should be behind the screen instead of the tipical upper right..like that the conversation would look more real like face to face instead of watching me looking at the screen and not the camera
In my circle of people, it basically comes down to issues with the Service Provider with the high cost of video-calling at the top of the list. There’s also the slow implementation of 3G services and the quality and availability of 3G phones provided by the Service Provider.
It’s not more popular for the same reason keeping a phone as your primary e-mail device or IM device or online retail via your mobile isn’t more popular: data costs.
In short, telco greed
With my provider videocalls were completely free for the first 2 years after they introduced them and now they cost exactly the same as regular calls. But i never use them, even when they were free i only used them once or twice to see how they worked. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the viewing angle or the quality, the real problem for me is that during videocalls you have to hold your phone in front of your face and talk loud enough for the other parson to hear you. Almost everybody has 3G phones now, but i have never seen anybody make videocalls in public. It just looks too stupid and the technology isn’t ahead of its time, i bet nobody will use it even in 20 years.