It is the future.
Nov. 12th, 2006 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmcirvinJorie and I just had an extended videophone conversation with my dad.
Videophones are one of those things like flying cars and directed-energy sidearms that are perennial signifiers of The Future. The standard line about videophones, when people are making wisecracks about science fiction, is that the technology has been around for decades but it turned out that nobody wants it. This is not true. What people saw working decades ago was a World's Fair demo, which of course is trivial to rig even with 1940s technology, since it's nothing but a simple CCTV hookup and the only network you need is a video cable.
The sticking point was always upstream bandwidth from the home; the upstream bandwidth necessary for half-decent home videophones really has only existed since various forms of broadband Internet started to become common (not to mention elaborate digital video compression schemes). So the videophones that have existed since the 1990s work as software on your webcam-enabled computer, just like Murray Leinster predicted in 1946 in "A Logic Named Joe" (along with dozens of other predictions in that story that came true).
Now cell phones routinely come with cameras, though the wireless upstream bandwidth for live video calls isn't quite there yet.
That said, it is true that you really don't need or want a video hookup much of the time, for reasons of privacy, etiquette, and not being bothered to go to the effort of playing to the camera; and for many conversations video is simply not useful. (As others have observed, the mobile cameraphone more than doubles the utility of the camera just by pointing it in the other direction--you're showing people what you're looking at, not just your own face.)
On the other hand, there is a gigantic, obvious built-in market for home videophones in the classic science-fiction mold, and that is grandparents. There's nothing like being able to show Dad the baby in live video.
Videophones are one of those things like flying cars and directed-energy sidearms that are perennial signifiers of The Future. The standard line about videophones, when people are making wisecracks about science fiction, is that the technology has been around for decades but it turned out that nobody wants it. This is not true. What people saw working decades ago was a World's Fair demo, which of course is trivial to rig even with 1940s technology, since it's nothing but a simple CCTV hookup and the only network you need is a video cable.
The sticking point was always upstream bandwidth from the home; the upstream bandwidth necessary for half-decent home videophones really has only existed since various forms of broadband Internet started to become common (not to mention elaborate digital video compression schemes). So the videophones that have existed since the 1990s work as software on your webcam-enabled computer, just like Murray Leinster predicted in 1946 in "A Logic Named Joe" (along with dozens of other predictions in that story that came true).
Now cell phones routinely come with cameras, though the wireless upstream bandwidth for live video calls isn't quite there yet.
That said, it is true that you really don't need or want a video hookup much of the time, for reasons of privacy, etiquette, and not being bothered to go to the effort of playing to the camera; and for many conversations video is simply not useful. (As others have observed, the mobile cameraphone more than doubles the utility of the camera just by pointing it in the other direction--you're showing people what you're looking at, not just your own face.)
On the other hand, there is a gigantic, obvious built-in market for home videophones in the classic science-fiction mold, and that is grandparents. There's nothing like being able to show Dad the baby in live video.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-13 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-14 12:35 am (UTC)I'm not sure about the Zeppelins though. I'm inclined to view the blimp scene in Batman as an effort by those in power to convince the orthonoids that the scene they are watching is fictional. There is a clear implication in the film that the mass aerial nerve-gassing of American citizens is a thing that is not actually happening.
I recently saw a claim that there existed just 36 blimps in the world. It's amazing what some people will believe.
Fujifilm, for Christ's sake! Why is the blimp really there? If it was there to sell film, don't you think your neighbors would have bought some by now?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-14 01:09 am (UTC)