[3GScottishUser]

One of 3G's first big features was videocalling but after 7+ years it seems to have failed to capture the interest of mobile users.

Why do you think it bombed?

[Hands0n]

In a word ... "cost". Videocalling is typically priced around the 50p - 60p per minute yet the reality is that it does not actually "cost" the network anything extra to carry it.

O2 are alone in pricing Videocalling the same as regular tariffed rates, i.e. one minute of videocalling equals one minute of voice calling. But every other network charges extra. Not even 3 provide inclusive VC minutes anymore.

The crazy thing is, each 3G network equipped itself with IMS technology capable of very many things over and above VC but none of them have made any use of the technology for anything more than voice switching. Yet IMS is able to unify very many types of communications - voice, video , instant messaging, presence - providing in the best cases seamless switching across all. But the technology is being squandered by companies that really have little vision other than the core business of voice and SMS text.

I firmly believe that there is a great untapped market for VC across the board. I remember well in the first days, March 2003, when I was buying my pair of 3ToGo e601 handsets. In the 3 store were a pair of builders who intended to use the VC to save on travelling from site to site for inspections of work done by their contractors. They felt a practical use would be to use the VC technology to see the work, or what had to be worked upon, to help them make a decision on what needed doing. They had tried a pair out and were now ready to commit. There must be thousands of parallel uses that could be made of the tech.

But sadly, the mobile network operators have decided to keep VC at a premium. It is still there, of course it is, the IMS switches are still in place, a core part of their infrastructure. But it seems that the mobile network operators will be damned if they'll make the technology mainstream by pricing it more attractively - like making it the same price as voice calling.

Videocalling never actually bombed. It never got off the ground and was, instead, drowned at birth with great intention.

[hecatae]

One of 3G's first big features was videocalling but after 7+ years it seems to have failed to capture the interest of mobile users.

Why do you think it bombed?

you cant video call and walk at the same time, video calling is very much a sit down stand still experience

[Hands0n]

you cant video call and walk at the same time, video calling is very much a sit down stand still experience

You have obviously never seen my local Chavs use it :D

Seriously, a good point - but that could also be the same reason every single portable TV method has failed (including mobile phones). But there is a definite gap waiting to be filled where videocalling is concerned. Even the UK troops were using it in 2003 to see their families back home. There are no end of practical applications as distinct from "walk 'n view".

[hecatae]

video call where am I, use outwards cam and slowly rotate on spot, video call while sitting on sofa

[Ben]

I have no interest in people being able to see me while I'm talking to them. One of the beauties of a phone call is that you can be almost anywhere and do almost anything and yet still have a completely unrelated conversation. If the person can see you and your surroundings then it's just a big distraction.

[DBMandrake]

It's the same reason video podcasts on a mobile device don't really work. (For me anyway) I'm an avid listener of podcasts (particularly some of the twit.tv ones :) ) but although there are video versions of many of them, I always download the audio version for my iPhone, even though it can play the video version just fine, and I have plenty of storage for them.

Why ? Because I'm one of those crazy multitaskers who is not happy unless he's doing two things at once. I don't have the patience or single mindedness to sit through an hour long video podcast holding a phone in view, or watching it on a PC for that matter. For me a podcast is something I listen to while I do other things - travel on the train, (where admittedly I could watch a video version, aside from the puzzled gazes of nearby commuters :D ) while driving, washing dishes or doing housework, walking or jogging etc. With a video version you have to stop what you're doing and focus your attention on looking at the device.

Similarly I've spent a lot of time talking long distance on Skype (between the UK and NZ) and although it is nice to see the person at the other end sometimes, especially if you haven't talked in a while, as far as having an actual conversation goes, it is a huge distraction trying to keep in front of the camera, it makes you self concious and you get distracted by watching the picture and don't really hear what the other person says as well as if you weren't seeing them. Seems odd, but that's the way it works. Somehow just hearing their voice alone (as long as the sound quality is good - and here Skype excels over a phone call) makes you feel more like you're really there, than seeing them as well.

I'm sure video calls have specific use cases (just like video Skype calls) but for general conversations it is indeed a distraction, and you're better off with just voice. What the networks could do though, is provide higher sound quality - high fidelity sound really does improve the immersivness as well as the intelligibility, and in a good skype connection the sound quality is orders of magnitude better than a typical mobile or land-line call, and it really makes a difference. In these days of 3G, higher data rates etc, there's no reason it couldn't be implemented, in fact I understand Orange is taking a first step in that direction soon. An 8 bit pcm stream quantized at 64kbit/sec compressed down to 13kbit/sec (or 6.5kbit/sec on half rate GSM) by a crude lossy codec from the early 90's just doesn't cut it any more.

[@NickyColman]

Cost is what did it for me! The only time I ever video called anyone was when i was with '3' and that was purely because I had inclusive video minutes.

Once I moved networks the price sky rocketed. Most of my friends & family dont know the cost of videocalling, but they know its not the same as a voice call (Unless you are on O2 that is. Which is sort of ironic due to their lack of 3G coverage....lol.). Thats why most people wouldnt consider video'ning me because they dont know the price. If the networks actually advertised the price and perhaps changed it to match that of a voice call, it may just have its uses.

But the above concerns are all true. I've found it very awkward! Lighting, background, appearance etc all have to be considered before pressing dial. I've spent more time asking "Whats that?" "What you looking at?" "Wheres your other hand?!" on a videocall then I have actually doing something productive.

However, video calling definitely has benefits when it comes to sharing a really spontaneous moment though (childs first steps, drunken performance etc).

One point I have noted is the lack of a video-answer machine. I know 3 did have one in the days when they had pandas and octopuses advertising for them. When you made a call and it didnt get through you had the option to leave a video message, which could then be delivered as an MMS to the persons handset. Now, to me, thats a genius idea. It combines both sending an MMS & video call in one convenient way. But i dont think the other networks do the same.....I may be wrong?

[DBMandrake]

Now that the new iPhone is almost upon us and it's looking 95% certain it's going to have a front facing camera that does video calls of some kind I thought it was a good time to pose this question - will video calling fail a second time around, or will a video call capable iPhone 4G with widespread adoption and (presumably) good quality video and a top notch user experience be the driving force needed to give video calling the push into the mainstream it has so far failed to achieve?

Unlike most of the other features of the iPhone, video calling is going to be very dependant on the quality of the 3G networks, and therefore it could succeed or fail through no fault of Apple's if their partners 3G networks are not up to the task, something that I'm sure Apple is keenly aware of, and possibly the reason they have delayed so long in releasing an iPhone with a front facing camera. (The other reason being lack of HSUPA)

What I'd like to know, is whether video calls will be network based (eg compatible with existing 50p per minute circuit switched video calls to other video capable phones) or whether the camera will be open for applications such as skype to use. If applications are free to access the camera (and thus provide video "calls" over the internet) will the networks/Apple place restrictions on "no internet Video calls over 3G, only Wifi" in the same way they did with no VoIP over 3G ?

I can't see networks being very happy about a video call capable phone coming out in large numbers that is able to place unfettered video/voice calls over 3G data and bypass their 50p/min video call cartel...

Or will we see the partner networks radically dropping their video call prices, in a similar way that the iPhone release forced a lot of networks to radically drop their data prices ?

[Hands0n]

I still have a great regard for Videocalling, although I do accept that I am one of only a few lone voices. I do believe that in 2003 it was ahead of its time, but am also not convinced that even now is the right time.

Certainly the make or break for Videocalling is the pricing per minute, and even today it is prohibitively [I would say punitively] expensive.

I expect Videocalling to continue to fail, being crushed by the mobile network operators who really have no interest in any volume use of the product.

[Ben]

I have a suspicion (or is it just hope) that Apple will force partner networks to offer attractive video calling pricing in their iPhone tariffs. Allowing video as part of data allowances may also be a demand.

Compatibility and cost are surely the key stumbling blocks for CSD video calling. If IM/VoIP apps pick up the gauntlet on the iPhone then video 'calling' on mobiles may finally find its place as it's used by those who currently make use of it on a computer.

Traditional mobile users (callers, or even texters) have no regular need for video calling, IMHO.

[Hands0n]

Traditional mobile users (callers, or even texters) have no regular need for video calling, IMHO.

See, I simply cannot agree with that at all. Whilst video calling is still seen as a novelty it is by no means something that wouldn't be used regularly, if the price were just right - which it isn't.

Three had people video calling all over the place - but by managing to make themselves a bit player in the UK market the chance of finding a friend/family member on Three is remote! The rest of the industry implemented video calling and promptly priced it out of reach of the average person with the sole exception of O2 who don't have a 3G network of any particular coverage or worth and so that is entirely moot also.

[gorilla]

Don't you need a headset to use video calling? It's not like you could walk down the street holding your phone in front of you and have a conversation - neither party would be able to hear whats going on!
Similarly, who is going to wear a headset in the house?

For me video calling is a good idea, it has its uses, but it's a niche market.
Why did it fail? Lack of demand, pure and simple. Consumers have shown that if they want something they will buy it regardless of cost. The iPhone and iPad are prime examples.
How comfortable is it to have a video chat using a mobile phone? With a webcam you can position it and then you're done. If you use a mobile, I'd imagine that you'd have to hold the phone either to let the other person see you or for you to see the screen.

I wouldn't take into consideration video calling capabilities when buying a new phone.

[DBMandrake]

What I'd like to know, is whether video calls will be network based (eg compatible with existing 50p per minute circuit switched video calls to other video capable phones) or whether the camera will be open for applications such as skype to use. If applications are free to access the camera (and thus provide video "calls" over the internet) will the networks/Apple place restrictions on "no internet Video calls over 3G, only Wifi" in the same way they did with no VoIP over 3G ?

I can't see networks being very happy about a video call capable phone coming out in large numbers that is able to place unfettered video/voice calls over 3G data and bypass their 50p/min video call cartel...


Hmm, is this the sound of the other shoe dropping already ?

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/29/skype-app-finally-delivers-on-3g-voice-calling/

A new version of Skype for iPhone has been released that finally allows VoIP over 3G, but use of VoiP over 3G will only be free until August, and then requires a subscription from your (mobile) network. WTF ?

What exactly is the point of placing a VoIP call over 3G using Skype if your phone network is going to charge you some kind of call rates in addition to the data charge ? :mad: Seems as if Skype have sold out.

(Anyone with a jailbroken iPhone with VoIPover3G installed has been able to make Skype voice calls on 3G for a long time, so there is no technical limitation even in older versions of Skype)

We already know that Skype are an advance developer on the iPhone (they were trotted up on stage for the iPhone OS 4.0 beta announcement, to show off their OS 4.0 multitasking integration, before most of the developer community had even seen the 4.0 SDK) so it seems quite likely that they are also privy to the iPhone 4G and it's front facing camera for the purposes of advance development of a video call version of Skype for iPhone.

So are we looking at having to pay a network subscription for video calls even over 3rd party data based apps like Skype ? What about those of us on un-official networks ?

As much as I love the iPhone, I really am getting sick of these kind of carrier lock-ins and anti-competitive behaviours, which is one reason I'll probably continue to jailbreak even with OS 4.0...

Edit: Here is the page that loads in app when you click on the details button:

http://mobiledownload.skype.com/go.php?k=3.17035&page=91919

Also, now that I look more closely, nowhere in the app does it say specifically that the "mobile subscription" is payable to your mobile network, it may in fact be to Skype themselves, whereas all the blog sites have assumed that the subscription is with the mobile network...

[Hands0n]

I did wonder when Skype would move to a revenue-earning model. Giving it away is all very well on the basis that some people will buy "value added" product too. But inevitably even that has to come to some kind of end if the entire purpose of Skype is not to be completely altruistic.

I wonder how this will affect Three's free Skype for life proposition.

[DBMandrake]

Well, there is nothing altruistic about Skype - they already have a revenue-earning model - although Skype to Skype calls have been free, they charge for services that connect to the PSTN - Skypeout, Skypein, Voicemail and so on, and it's these services that Skype make their money on, and plenty of it.

The problem I have with this latest move is that it appears that they will now be charging even for Skype to Skype calls, but only if you are attempting to make them over a 3G network, not over Wifi or from a PC/Mac. This can only be at the behest of Apple's app store approval process, which will in turn be driven by demands from Apple's partner networks such as AT&T.

My guess is that Skype will charge a subscription on your Skype account, monitor what 3G network you are connecting over, then pay a kickback to that network provider based on the number of Skype minutes that you use over 3G - thus the money goes largely to the phone network in a clever attempt to circumvent lost revenue to 3G based VoIP.

Apple's app store approval process allows them to deny Skype the ability to release a 3G compatible version of Skype without agreeing to terms that Apple's partner networks demand - basically using the App Store approval for anti-competitive means just like a year ago when VoIP over 3G apps were explicitly vetoed in the developer terms and conditions. (That ban was lifted early this year, but until now nobody knew why Skype were dragging their heels so much on updating their app to work on 3G when other competing apps were quickly updated...)

[The Mullet of G]

It failed because I only used it once, had I used it more then it probably would have succeeded. Next time I'll tell you the story of that one time I used a Philips CDi or the time I used an Apple Mac. :)

[Hands0n]

I had a Philips CDi. Typically though, so much promise, so little delivery. Meanwhile VideoCD was much more than alive and well in the Far East (I was travelling in Hong Kong and Singapore at the time). Then DVD arrived and the West went for that instead, for all of the so-called good reasons at the time.

I hold out some hope for video calling yet, I'm not quite ready to give up on it yet :)

[The Mullet of G]

I played Mad Dog Mccree on a CDi back in the day, it was quite impressive. I still didn't buy one though, as they were a bit pricey and lacked decent 3rd party support, fast forward a few years and Sony did much the same with PS2 and PS3, PS3 is eerily similar to the CDi in that it was pricey at release, used a new disc format and lacked decent 3rd party support.

There is still hope for video calling, but they need to work on pricing.

[hecatae]

is it really cost effective to add a vga camera in a handset to make video calls if video calling is so under-rated by the networks

[Hands0n]

is it really cost effective to add a vga camera in a handset to make video calls if video calling is so under-rated by the networks

That is indeed an interesting observation. My thoughts are that there are polar differences between the handset manufacturers and the mobile network operators in this respect, no doubt among many others.

Clearly, the 3G handset manufacturers (I'll exclude so-called smartphones for now) have purposely designed in the capability to perform video calling as that was one of the key features in the overall 3G specification. The mobile network operators also conformed to spec by including the feature in their network offering. But where it all goes wrong is where the mobile network operators [collectively] have priced the product out of the reasonable reach of the punter.

Seven years down the line since the first 3G networks we see manufacturers still building in video call capable handsets despite this powerful network's opposition to the technology. Shame on them all.

[miffed]

hmm ..... interesting !

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/30/skype-app-updated-to-allow-voice-calls-over-3g/