Why video chat will never succeed, by David Foster Wallace | Hacker News Reader

Why video chat will never succeed, by David Foster Wallace

kottke.org

16 pointsnoahlt26 comments

I still feel confused: is it only the western european UMTS bubble that makes video calls from mobile seem like old news?

Most 3g operators have marketed (possibly low quality) video calls for a few years in europe, with varying level of success, so there is not a real need to speculate, we could just look at the numbers, no?

Is the issue not one of network effects?

Facetime and Skype don't require you to own a video phone to make and receive calls, you can do it on a laptop or desktop either to people with video phones, or to other computer users.

Most of the network marketed video calls have been phone to phone meaning the number of people you can call (which network effects tell us will have a significant impact on uptake and popularity) is far far smaller.

So yes, you could pull the numbers, but it's not clear what they'd tell you about the situation we find ourselves in now.

Recently I watched a girl using sign language with another person via Facetime and I though to myself "This shit is what technology is about." So, screw this. Even if it doesn't succeed with everyone and everywhere it makes some people's lives a lot easier.

I tried using 3g video calling on my phone a few years ago, but was never impressed. It was a hassle, really ... difficult to walk and talk at the same time.

However, one day I saw someone I saw using sign language over 3g video calling, and was impressed. This is a few years ago, actually. You probably don't need Facetime if you're on a decent mobile network.

So did I. It was in the Apple commercial.

The article isn't arguing that Facetime won't succeed as a niche product so I don't see why you take issue with it.

I have no first hand experience, but I'd guess the widespread use of SMS text messaging was a much bigger boon for those with hearing difficulties. Not quite as "sexy", and difficult to portray in an ad (particularly as you'd be even more insane to try and claim this was an innovative feature of your platform) but still out there making people's lives better. I'm fairly certain the same is true of the web generally despite occasional steps backwards with Flash, unsubtitled and untranscribed audio and video etc.

As a data point, my grandparents are deaf, and their use of SMS has pretty much replaced TTY Relay, and made it much easier for them to have quick conversation with almost anyone.

They still seem to use video chatting within their group of friends with hearing difficulties, but it's reserved for the type of conversations we would have over the phone.

Okay, here's the full lowdown on how deaf people communicate.

Currently, deaf people log somewhere close to 2 million VRS minutes a month. These are services where they talk to a VI (video interpreter) to translate sign language as they call somebody else. This is their native language, and I assure you they prefer it more than any other mode of communication. Many of them absolutely abhor TTY and often relate text messages with that. However there are other services which piggy back off of AIM called IPRelay. This are the only way to communicate on the go, so they are somewhat popular, but nowhere near as popular as VRS.

Currently, the only real VRS solutions are point to point from their homes. Some companies have tried to piggy back off of Facetime with little success, largely due to constraints with the wifi and FCC regulations of logging minutes (that's how they get paid)

In the coming months, Sorenson (previously the Sorenson in the Sorenson codec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorenson_codec), the largest provider by far of VRS services (more than a factor of 10) will start to unveil their full onslaught of VRS communications to the deaf community. Deaf people will be able to use VRS services on Android, iPhone, PCs and Macs. And not just on wifi, the goal is deployment on 3G and 4G networks, the holy grail, especially because wifi can get really tricky when users are behind firewalls.

What does it take for this deployment? Sorenson has a quality requirement of a minimum of 12 fps and sub 1 second latency over 3G and 4G networks, but a goal closer to 15fps. They've been able to meet their goals, and their video puts Qik to shame.

Sprint is likely going to license Sorenson's technology because they also provide some of their own branded VRS services.

So, will the hearing take to video chat? Maybe, maybe not. But the deaf will. For the first time in their life they'll be able to call anyone from anywhere you and I can, and talk to them in their native language, ASL.

I probably wouldn't have said any of this a month ago, but Sorenson started pushing a video teaser for their nTouch brand, which is the brand name for their entire solution (Mobile, PC, and TV based VRS systems)

VRS vet here. Your email's not in your profile, can you get in touch with me? Joshua dot allmann at gmail.

you are quite a bit off in number of minutes the number is 8 million a month.. you are correct in deaf preference for VRS In regard to Sorenson. ZVRS has already introduced a incredibly high quality product that works on both the droid and the iphone as well as tablets zvrs.com

On the internet you are your own public relations agent, so I can imagine why people wouldn't want to use video chat because I can think of reasons similar to those described why I wouldn't want to video chat frequently. Video gives out many more cues than audio only, or mere text, and if you're doing anything in a professional capacity via the internet you might not want the person you're communicating with to be able to easily obtain lots of incidental information about your life. This will apply even moreso as jobs are outsourced to poorer areas of the world.

There are different forms of communication depending on the type of relationship you have with a person. Using the author's logic, email/texting would be the only form of communication we'd use since it solves the "stress" and "vanity" problem better than even telephones. But that's not the case.

Email/texting with acquaintances. Telephone with friends. And video chat with close friends/family. We use the level of interaction commensurate with the relationship at hand since at the end of the day we still yearn for that real connection with other humans.

Never is a strong word. People prefer to talk to each other face-to-face rather than on opposite sides of a wall. For this reason video chat will obviously succeed, once the technical solution is at a level where it is close enough to the real thing. (Obvious current shortcoming: You don't look people in the eye, but slightly below it).

Alternate title: "Why video chat on the iphone4 will not succeed". (Meta: Should I flag the article because of this?)

No you shouldn't flag the article because of this. The iPhone 4 is what triggered Kottke's post but the point he's making is more general.

This is so wrong. I imagine video cold-calling will be a faux pas for awhile still, but many of my friends use video-skype on a daily basis.

"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." — Douglas Adams (The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time)

It's nice to see people on the other end though.

I moved away from my home city a few months ago and it's nice to be able to chat to my parents via skype with webcams because we don't see each other as often anymore.

Communications with friends and family is the ideal application for video chat.

Videochat failed because it tried to replace something the telephone was good at and unique. However, it may work to mitigate the need to travel for face-to-face meetings... or to uniquely provide common-space environments for distributed offices. The second option would require large high-definition screens and high-speed internet.

Anybody who has has tried FaceTime with their kids, neices, nephews or grandchildren knows how wrong this prediction is.

You can get an emotional response with video calling that the traditional phone just cannot deliver - which is exactly what the Apple commercials drive home.

Video chat may never succeed, but video conferencing is live and kicking.

The hearing can be so ignorant and short sighted.

Video chat is already succeeding: http://www.sorensonvrs.com/

Hearing people do not communicate primarily through the visual modality.

My point is that deaf people log more than 2 million minutes a month of "video chat" and that number is about to explode as mobile VRS services come online in the next 3 months. (I worked for Sorenson communications recently)

Thanks for the interesting article. Readers should take care to notice that it is dated summer of last year. It is still an interesting opinion.

Considering that David Foster Wallace killed himself in September 2008 it's unlikely that he recently made these predictions. The article claims that the thinking comes from Wallace's (critically acclaimed) novel Infinite Jest which you may note was published in 1996 so the ideas date from the last century, not from last year.

Nice write up by Jason Kottke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace

> Readers should take care to notice that it is dated summer of last year

and notice the ?repost=true in the url :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com