Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Mobile Videophone 58

Posted by CmdrTaco from the can-you-see-what-I'm-thinking? dept.
alecbrown writes: "Orange, a mobile phone service in the UK is about to release a Mobile Videophone coming out in 2001. As far as I know it uses Microsoft's PocketPC platform, and works on GSM1800, since as Orange has a HSCSD service and no GPRS service yet it is probably based on the former technology. I hate to think how expensive calls will be on that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mobile Videophone More

Mobile Videophone

Comments Filter:
  • Quite true. #3 was the problem with getting people to use telephones in the first place. #4 is true. Its just annoying. I can use a hands free kit and get on with other things. visual cues are useful in conversation, but not essential. I think it will catch on eventually, but not immediately first someone needs to come up with another use for it.
  • Englands a smaller country. We get almost anything to do with communications much faster than the US. Often even if it was introduced in the US first.
  • I have taken stills of the images and uploaded them here http://www.warnerve.net/cam/index.html [warnerve.net]
    Enjoy.
    ---
    Fred Ackermann
    e-mail: fred@warnerve.net
    homepage: www.warnerve.net
    mobile: 0402 293 572
  • Here are still images of the Videophone for those of you annoyed with the scanning Flash images.
    http://www.warnerve.net/cam/index.html [warnerve.net]
    Enjoy

    ---
    Fred Ackermann
    e-mail: fred@warnerve.net
    homepage: www.warnerve.net
    mobile: 0402 293 572
  • [whois3.apnic.net]

    % Rights restricted by copyright. See http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html

    inetnum: 210.144.0.0 - 210.159.255.255
    netname: JPNIC-NET-JP
    descr: Japan Network Information Center
    country: JP
    admin-c: JNIC1-AP
    tech-c: JNIC1-AP
    remarks: JPNIC Allocation Block
    remarks: Authoritative information regarding assignments and
    remarks: allocations made from within this block can also be
    remarks: queried at whois.nic.ad.jp. To obtain an English
    remarks: output query whois -h whois.nic.ad.jp x.x.x.x/e
    mnt-by: MAINT-JPNIC
    changed: apnic-ftp@nic.ad.jp 19991208
    source: APNIC

    role: Japan Network Information Center
    address: Fuundo Bldg. 3F, 1-2 Kanda-Ogawamachi
    address: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0052, Japan
    phone: +81-3-5297-2311
    fax-no: +81-3-5297-2312
    e-mail: hostmaster@nic.ad.jp
    admin-c: NM6-AP
    tech-c: YM15-AP
    tech-c: IK6-AP
    tech-c: KM19-AP
    nic-hdl: JNIC1-AP
    mnt-by: MAINT-JPNIC
    changed: apnic-ftp@nic.ad.jp 19990629
    source: APNIC

    inetnum: 210.155.84.0 - 210.155.86.255
    netname: SAKURA-NET
    descr: SAKURA Internet Inc.
    descr: Senba-Tsutada-bldg. 2F, 1-9-7 Minami-kyuhoji
    descr: Chuo-ku, Osaka, Osaka 541-0058, Japan
    country: JP
    admin-c: KT749JP
    tech-c: KT749JP
    tech-c: HS821JP
    remarks: This information has been partially mirrored by APNIC from
    remarks: JPNIC. To obtain more specific information, please use the
    remarks: JPNIC whois server at whois.nic.ad.jp. (This defaults to
    remarks: Japanese output, use the /e switch for English output)
    remarks: This information has been partially mirrored by APNIC from
    remarks: JPNIC. To obtain more specific information, please use the
    remarks: JPNIC whois server at whois.nic.ad.jp. (This defaults to
    remarks: Japanese output, use the /e switch for English output)
    changed: apnic-ftp@nic.ad.jp 19971023
    changed: apnic-ftp@nic.ad.jp 20001123
    source: JPNIC

  • Remember that story (maybe someone still has a link ...) about pictures from a tech show in Japan. There were lots of these, and they looked better, with the cameras mounted in the center of the phone rather than hanging off the edge like this one. Wait awhile and we'll see plenty more ... and better.
  • If your gestures represent your actual opinions, is it bad that others see how you feel about things? Personally, I'm tired of pretending. I want people to like me or don't like me for who I am, not who I pretend to be.
  • Unfortunately, this isn't the Jetsons. We can't press a button to have fake perfect clothing and hair drop down in front of us so that our boss doesn't see how dishelved we look in real life.

    Personally, I don't think this will catch on for a while. Similar innovations have been available throughout corporate America for years now, yet have failed to become the standard. Like webcams, I suspect this will be a device best marketted to the sex industry at first.
  • MPPC [landfield.com] - Microsoft Point-To-Point Compression

    GSM [gsmworld.com] - Global Standard for Mobile commnications (this one runs at 1800mhz, pretty standard, used throughout the world... with the notable absence of one country.)

    HSCSD [nokia.com] - High Speed Circuit Switched Data (this is a little like GRPS, however it's point-to-point based and provides more bandwidth than packet switched GPRS, but it isn't connected 24/7)

    GRPS [gsmworld.com] - General Packet Radio Service, (always on, packet based mobile network, ip based).

    ASDF [asdf.org] - Association of Synchronous Data Formats (the synchronous carrier format to provide a level of QoS and ensure delivery.)

    LMNOP - ?? got me on that one, sounds like some protocol for binding ip to the wireless standard.
  • All good points, but I think PC video has suffered different problems from what could be implemented over a wireless network:

    #1 PC video is too difficult to setup and configure. There is little chance of getting your grandmother to get a video session up on her PC. Wireless devices will be preconfigured and nothing to plug-in. Airwaves go anywhere.

    #2 PC video uses internet for data transmission. This lacks QOS and quality is very variable. Wireless networks will go over dedicated lines and have a minimum QOS or the call won't go through. You will have to pay for it, though.

    #3 PC video is too big of a platform. How can you ensure quality when a user might be using a super shitty camera over a modem with a 486? Wireless devices will have a fixed platform so you can always be sure the other side can receive and decode the signal.

    #4 PC video only allows people to share "bedroom" experiences. Wireless will let you share any aspect of your life.. take it to a wedding, a bar, etc. This makes the devices very marketable.

    Why it may be a while, I think there will be an inevitable convergence of video cameras, digital camera, cell phones, and pdas into one device.
  • Most PocketPC models can play MP3's so it probably will be able to. I'm sure you will be able to surf Slashdot also. Wonder if anyone is writing a Napster Client or similar for this platform?

  • We're all years behind Finland and Norway... And there's norway we'll finnish ahead of them.

    But seriously, we've got nothing on those zany nordic peoples in the wireless department.

    Madhouse [insaneabode.com], satirized for your protection.

  • Hey, this is the UK, we're not so obsessed with the car as other countries, our petrol is so expensive we can't afford to. Maybe mobiles havn't taken off in the US as much because they commute in the car more.
  • Signal_11 TheReverand: you wanna take this up with the slashdot crew, or do you want me to take care of our DSL lamer?
    TheReverand Signal_11 both

    So, did you take it up with the Slashdot crew and if so what did they say? Or are you guys just trolling us again?

    Look, if this really happened I think you should raise hell, but if you plan to post offtopic stuff to the stories the least you could do is make an effort to gather all the possible proof.

    Phil Garnier

  • This seems like a cool thing. Someday when I get lost in a foreign city I could call and get someone to show me a map. :) Or actually put the phone in front of me and let them give me verbal directions.

    But you know the laws prohibiting these while operating anything at all that moves will be a book in themselves. I mean, cellphones are bad, these will be MUCH worse.
  • Just think when you call the 1-900 numbers you can look at the scuzzy old hag that happens to have a nice voice. Ughh!

    In reality do I really care to look at the person I'm talking to? I don't care if my boss wears a tie or a co-worker is wearing a t-shirt.

    Another useless technology just like my wheel mouse!
  • Essentially its a Windows CE PDA with a camera on top. Its not particularly inovative or interesting in the sense that orange are doing anything new - except increasing the available bandwidth and packaging up something (that pretty much uses off the shelf components) and selling it (based on Orange's behaviour here in the UK in the past) for quite a pretty penny. We don't need a proprietary solution to video phones - this is just another way for one of the big telecoms companies in the UK to try to maintain a strangehold over anything going across their network. I'll be waiting until the costs come down, and there are more open solutions.
  • They have actually just proved that something is seriously wrong with the moderation systems of most (not mentioning any names right now) news sites. The question now is if anything can be done about a site once it reaches a certain size. Technology by geeks can only go so far when it comes to open fourms such as these at some point advanced mathematics and politics needs to come into place. Which brings me to the note of a discussion on another forum weather k5's democracy system will hold up - also should slashdot try it ?
    ---
    Fred Ackermann
    e-mail: fred@warnerve.net
    homepage: www.warnerve.net
    mobile: 0402 293 572
  • I wonder if the company did any market research before creating this product. I mean where do a good majority of people use cellphones most... their cars. A video phone will be useless in the car and would probably cause some very bad driving. Also im sure the units and the service are going to be very pricey. Seriously i dont think that anyone is has some sort of driving need to see people theyre alking to while their out of their homes. With the relativly weak acceptance of standard video phones i really dont see this idea doing very well. Sorry but i think this product will be a bomb...

  • Building Upon Success... (Score:4)

    by LHOOQtius_ov_Borg ( 73817 ) on Friday November 24, 2000 @11:40AM (#603106)
    Is this building upon the resounding success of land-line and Internet videophones and hoping to lure all those people accustomed to this kind of communication over to the wireless world...?

    When I worked at Lucent I worked in a Bell Labs group that did R&D into Internet video (among other things), and we also had a partnership with PictureTel. Not only was there little luck selling the PictureTels [picturetel.com] and Lucent innovations thereupon, but even less success in getting people to use them, even within Lucent. Why? The video sucked because bandwidth was still too slow and even the top-of-the-line video encoders gave us too-small pictures and bad resolution (even on a point-to-point connection; even over our ATM network... depending on which system)

    Now, maybe wireless videophone systems are more apt to be used than land-based ones owing simply to the personalities of the "road warrior" type and how they communicate, but this product info doesn't mention whether or not they address serious issues regarding the usability of videophones...

    Without eye-tracking for frame centering and other feedback, the image feels too unnatural, and people have a difficult time communicating with it because they get none of the visual cues they'd like to have in addition to speech - so rather than enhancing the comms it becomes distracting and (in some studies) upsetting and off-putting (especially when network or codec related jitters cause desynchronization of audio and video).

    Currently, wireless networks are even slower than the best land-line networks, and small handheld devices still can pack-in less DSP and CPU power than big systems (in fact, that will always be true...) Their system does not mention anything about image resolution or bandwidth (and resultant FPS using their codec - and how this effects sound quality), and the total screen size is 4" including the person you're talking to and (oddly) feedback of yourself talking (something I don't particularly want to see when I'm talking to someone else)...

    So it looks "groovy," but there's little in their info to indicate whether or not it's also usable...

    This seems to fall into the category of gadgets that are cool and sci-fi, but where the practicalities and human-interface issues seem to come second to "gee whiz" value...
  • This could be a stupid question; I know nothing of the UK phone system....
    But I was under the impression that as for getting new high-tech toys, the USA and Canada are at least a year ahead of most of the world. how come we don't have video phones? (Well, we do, but they're nowhere near common enough to warrant a video cellphone.) Why develop such a phone when there's nobody that can use it? Sounds like shooting themselves in the foot when the phone inevitably costs more than anything else.

  • Re:Bomb (Score:1)

    by Riktov ( 632 )
    >>>
    I mean where do a good majority of people use cellphones most... their cars.
    >>>

    In the United States, yes. But in places like Japan, and I assume to a similar degree, Europe, which is the market for this phone, people get around on trains and buses, and that's where and when they use cellphones and perhaps videophones.

    What's more, the argument that "I don't want people to see what I look like" won't apply. If you're not worried about your appearance while on a train surrounded by dozens of strangers, you probably look nice enough to an acquaintance.

    I still wouldn't bet a whole lot of money on the success of the vid-cellphone, but don't draw such hasty conclusions.
  • It's nice but they're more than a year late, I did work experience at Orange in June '99 and they were pushing this as their welcome to the new millenium, to be sold from December '99.
  • The one reason i wouldn't use a video phone would be that when i use a phone, i'm always doing something else. this is true for most people, i would think. specially if it's a handheld. it all goes down to productivity. if i can have the phone in my left hand or shoulder, i still have my eyes, and one or two hands for doing something else like using the computer, watching tv or driving.

    the only case i can think of right now where i would want to see the person on the other side would be during a meeting on a conference call, but that's usually only a small fraction of all the calls y make/receive.
  • use all the functions of a Personal Digital Assistant - Videophone is powered by Microsoft Windows
    and this is meant to instill confidence in potential buyers?
  • Couldn't they think up a better name than "Orange"?

    Well, Orange is probably Britain's sexiest brand. They have an extremely artistic TV ad campaign and they're perceived as very slick by most of the population. A new name would pretty much destroy their brand. "the future's bright.. the futures's Orange".

  • I think it's amazing that there aren't more phones with integrated MP3 players. It's such an obvious thing to do, isn't it? Who else agrees?

  • With all these questions flying around about the quality of the audio/video in this new videophonee system, perhaps the AV content could be encoded using MPEG-4 (Windows Media perhaps, considering the phones run on Windows)? If what we need is acceptable video and sound quality at low bitrates (ie. QCIF or 160x120-size MS-MPEG4 V3 video, 8kHz Mono ACELP.net 5kbit audio) then maybe MPEG-4 is the codec we're looking for?

    I mean, it's just a thought and any further comment/constructive criticism on that topic would be welcome but considering that MPEG-4 was designed for exactly this purpose (ie. mobile video telephony), it would be a good idea wouldn't it?

    Self Bias Resistor

    Never met a wise man, if so it's a woman. - Territorial Pissings, Nirvana

  • well, at least the video phone part.
    I think this mostly of marketing value. I guess Orange just wants to show off, something like "Hey look we got a video phone, we are the most advanced service provider on the market
    I guess what we are going to see is something like a Ipaq H3600 with a attached camera and phone. Might actually be a nice gadget, I guess if the camera is of fairly good quality and the Device itself has enough memory it might actually be quite nice for some tasks, take a quick picture, send it off to someone(maybe something for Insurace agent and the like).
    I mean there is at least some reason in buying such a thing instead of a digital camera, a pda and a cell phone.
    I guess there are just major usabilty problems with a mobile video phone, just image holding that damn thing in front of you for half an hour.

  • I am only posting this to Michael's stories until he responds to me. If he doesn't I will take it up with Taco. Whoever is posting it anonymously is not me. I will take the karma hit, because this is hypocritical bullshit.
  • I can't believe more phones don't offer this. It's such an obvious and cool piece of functionality to add to a phone. Who else agrees?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • The US is generally agreed to be a very slow adopter of mobile phone technology, which is very unusual since you're way ahead of the UK as far as web stuff goes. For example SMS messaging isn't a big thing in the US, but over here (UK & Europe) it's the next biggest thing since email. As far as I can tell, Italy has the most advanced uptake and decent mobile phone services. You can get mobile phone services that double up as email and will read your emails to you over the phone. And it's cheaper to dial your ISP using your mobile phone than a land line in Italy!!! Incredible.
  • Enabling HSCSD on Orange for my 6210 costs an extra five pounds a month flat rate, with no difference in airtime charges.

    Admittedly it's a two-channel 28.8kbps (2x14.4k) setup and not 43.2k yet. But as the 6210 seems incapable of full duplex at 43.2k anyway (at+cbst=51,0,1;+chsn=6,0,0,0 will yield 43.2k downlink, but only 14.4k uplink according to the documentation), I would assume that the videophone will use the existing full duplex 28.8kbps setup anyway.

  • How long have we been waiting for Dick Tracy's "Two Way Video Wristwatch" to be reality? As useless as this gadget is, it's still a long predicted milestone. Also, Kubrik's 2001 came out 30 years ago and has that famous scene with the wireless videophone so it seems appropriate that this (again, useless) gadget will be available in a few months.

  • Oh goody. Another toy to distract the idiots in the "Honda Racing" Accords as they tailgate me down the Don Valley Parkway.

    Thankfully, my truck can effortlessly demolish any Honda product ever made.

    While this is great technology with many applications, I'd hope that people would have sufficient common sense not to use them in the car.

    Sadly, in my drive to work every day, I see literally dozens of people reading newspapers folded up in their steering wheels, gabbing on the phone, eating breakfast (cereal - from a bowl - while driving a car that rolled back on hills (stickshift!) - the guy was *good*), doing make-up, shaving, etc.

    I just worry that this innovation will only result in more traffic jams.

  • Actually, the only way I can see this technology catching on is the same way as others have - if the phone sex industry adopts it.

    Of course, as seen from your comment, they'd have to set higher standards.
    --
    Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
  • LMNOP is the generic meaningless acronym. You use it in a list of acronyms like that to make it sound like you're singing the Alphabet Song.
    --
    Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
  • Sorry but there isn't enough bandwidth for video over your mobile. All these large companies in the UK have just forked out around 4 billion pounds sterling per UMTS license with all these grandiose schemes such as video phones and Vodaphone planning to download MP3s over your mobile. According to NTT who have rolled out UMTS in Japan it's, "uh uh guys, it just ain't happening". They now plan to offer short download video clips of only a few seconds as teasers and snippets of new singles as previews. There are more details in the FT (yesterday I think) but I can't find a link to the article on their site.

    A few claims were made about UMTS, including the speed. Right next to the base station, in theory, you can get 2Mb/s to your handset, at a distance 64kb/s, and on average around 384kb/s. The problem is how this is achieved. Each license allocates a fixed band of spectrum. This is broken down into a number of channels and down each of these channels the data is multiplexed. With UMTS you have the ability for one user to boost capacity by borrowing bandwidth from the channel (ie grabbing more of those multiplexed slots). *BUT* there is still only a fixed about of bandwidth to go around.

    A lot of telecoms theory is aimed at tailoring a system to allow for peak loads whilst minimising systems cost. Doesn't matter if it's a phone exchange or an ISP planning how many modems to put in the rack. A voice channel is 16kb/s. Let's put forwards the assumption that there is one mobile cell where they estimate a peak of 20 calls at any one time. Thus they put in one channel which at an average distance should provide enough capacity for 24 simultaneous calls (384kb/s divided by 16kb/s). Now let's imagine one person decides to video-conference over his mobile. "Medium Multimedia" is quoted at 384kb/s here [infowin.org] . Hence one person making that call locks out all phone calls in the entire vinciny of that cell.

    I'm sure you can all see the crunch coming. Nobody knows if videophones will take off and so the mobile companies aren't going to invest in billions of pounds just in case. You can't just throw in extra base stations, each new mast needs a back-feed to the land-line network. If people *do* start taking up video over mobile it will cripple the networks and there won't be any quality of service.

    I hear it's a similar story for GPRS. You may say, "ah but there are protocols that allow video streaming as low as 9600bp/s". Unfortunately it's been designed as a packet system for short bursts and not for everyone to lock GPRS streams open permanently.

    I don't mean to sound downbeat and I'm not saying GPRS and UMTS aren't the future. I *would* pay extra for the web pages on my laptop to download in a second or two instead of crawling at 9600. I'd prefer to pay a fixed subscription for mobile access instead of paying for time online using an analogue modem. However, in the foreseeable future if I need streamed video or HQ audio then I'll be looking to wireless modem (eg 802.11) or similar bandwidth-orientated technology.

    Feel free to disagree or point out any factual errors I have made. I hope that this has provided both a little light and food for thought.

    Phillip.
  • There are some very obvious uses.

    Government and local authority emergency planning -- being able to send back pictures of an event easily to others.
    Ditto any disaster scene.

    Repair work of many kinds -- again, being able to send back pictures to an office somewhere.

    I'm sure people can think of others.

  • They are coming out in January, so it is pretty soon. When you say they are coming out in 2001 it sounds as if it will be 2001 Christmas.. LOTR is coming out in 2001... SWII is coming out in 2001.. Webphone is coming out only in 2 months.


  • Orange are consistently rated the best provider of customer service in the UK - I'm certainly a very happy customer and they didn't have to pay me to say that.
  • Is my processor too fast? The graphics changed so fast on the linked page that I couldn't discern any details.

    First post > 0 (not for long)

    --
  • Everybody always complains about little use and acceptence the 'great new videophone technology' gets, but never realizes that the reason for this is that

    a) people like to talk on the phone and also be naked/scratching themselves/watching tv/etc

    b) obscene phone calls will be raised to a new level.

    Bad enough keeping your eyes on the road while talking on a mobile phone, imagine it on a video-phone? :)

  • This will be like WAP - too dear and next to no use to boot, how could you possibly get decent video at that bandwidth?
  • Couldn't they think up a better name than "Orange"? Sounds like a drink, not a piece of technology...

  • Thank goodness! (Score:3)

    by dubl-u ( 51156 ) <2523987012&pota,to> on Friday November 24, 2000 @11:16AM (#603133)
    Since videophones have now nearly replaced the ordinary audiophone, it's about time that they finally made a mobile phone that does video!

    And this will be so much better for all those people who drive and talk on their phones, too!
  • Get real. You and Signal11 is the largest trolls that have ever existed, and the fact that you've now started to pollute k5 (and people fall for it) makes me sad.
  • In computers we are ahead. In cellphones we are at least three years behind Europe and Japan. Sucks to be us.

  • I agree.

    I also fear that when the videophones become more commonplace, keeping the video feed switched off will be seen at least as impolite or even outright suspicious.

  • The idea has been around for way over 30 years. Some of the reasons it never caught on were
    1) no industry standard
    2) Price
    3) My friend does not have so what is the use
    4) People just want to talk not look at each other

    I am not saying that the Video will not become main stream someday but I do not see it happening any time soon because of the history of concept.
  • I doubt it is the processor, I am only running a 200mhz machine. The graphics just change too fast. My guess would be that they don't want you to see too much of the phone at once (if that makes any sense). It's not coming out for a while now and the caption says that the actual phone dimensions and appearence may vary. Or it could just be a crappy page like you said.
  • A big poster thats just Orange, or turing a whole TV screen Orange makes the product name stick in your mind.

    Could have stuck with the much less catchy Hutchinson telecom
  • ... now I will have to shave and actually wear clothes before I am on a call. It isn't enough to accept my skills as being good enough for remote support without a face.

    No.

    Now I have to look like I am in the office and clean up around me. Gone are the conference calls from the bathroom. Facial expressions will prevent you from rolling your eyes when you want to say something but can't say it. This raises the poker stakes even higher for making calls. Then again you could make really interesting gestures over the phone or do gang lang signing for others on the conference call. Let's see... you could even show your lack of ethusiasm by pointing the phone at a wall... or have little post it notes with different smiley faces tacked to a peg board that you could swivel between during conversation.

    Just thinking out loud... but I don't think this is something that will be as pervasive as we think.

  • What good will a mobile video phone be? How many people have a heart to heart talk to their long lost relatives during the morning commute?

    It's bad enough that we have the guy infront of us yapping on his mobile phone doing 20 mph in the fast lane, now we have to watch him fix his hair before hand.

    I'm sorry but this is the lamest idea for a vehicle yet.

  • I can see the TV shows now. Look at cops. When they have a big bust, they have cameras on the dash to see what is going on. Now they could get in the car shots by calling their phone during the chase. I can see it now "20 Greatest Face shots from an Orange Video Phone while breaking the Law." Long title, but I could see it being a hit.
  • MPPC, GSM1800, HSCSD, GPRS, ASDF, LMNOP...

    Enough abbreviations? I mean, it's all PCMCIA to me!
  • Do we really _NEED_ videophones? Remember when they tried that videophone standard on landlines? No one cared! To paraphrase a sig I've seen on slashdot regularly, "Software engineers think about what they can, and not about whether they should".

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close