The Jeff Pulver Blog: Do many people use Video Instant Messaging today?

« No Wi-Fi, No Broadband, No Jeff! | Main | ISPCON Keynote: VoIP Opportunities for ISPs »

November 04, 2004

Do many people use Video Instant Messaging today?

I was wondering if there are many people today who actually use "video instant messaging." The technology is in place and has been available for quite some time. What I don't know is whether or not people are actually using it and if not, then what is needed to get more people to give it a try.

I appreciate that video instant messaging is a killer app as a broadband communications tool for families engaged in long distance communication between loved ones.

But I also remember back when I used to spend some time on video conferences when I worked at Cantor Fitzgerald. Back then, once the ISDN video call started and we all established eye contact, what mattered most was the quality of the audio on the call and not much more. Sharing video was cool but in the end not the critical part of the conversation.

Does anyone have any insight on how significant will the use of video instant messaging be over the next 12-18 months and beyond?

Share this post:

Posted by jeff on November 4, 2004 02:30 AM | Permalink

Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos

Comments

I agree with Mr. Galbi that simply videoconferencing doesn't really add much value and is probably why it has never become widely accepted. I believe the "show and tell" type of application is far more valuable. I am constantly cut and pasting URL's in IM conversations to share articles, news, videos, etc. This experience needs to be fully integrated. So instead of us looking at eachother looking at our computers we can pull up Steve Jobs' latest keynote and watch it together and text comments back and forth. The same concept should be applied to images and all other content.

Posted by: Chris DeNovellis at November 5, 2004 02:26 PM

Jeff,

While I was originally a skeptic, I find I actually do use video instant messaging a good bit these days, primarily with MSN Messenger. It adds one more dimension to a conversation that is text based as a previous person commented. There are times when I am in a place where I can't make a phone call and am therefore using IM with someone - the video lets me see their reaction to our discussion. I think that is the main difference from what you described. Yes, with traditional videoconferencing, audio quality has been the main issue for communication. With video IM, the main means of communication is text, and video just provides for a richer exchange of information.

Regards,
Dan

P.S. On a somewhat cruel note, video IM also lets me show them beautiful scenery when I am in a place like Cancun (currently there for a conference) and they are somewhere back where it is cold and rainy. :-)

Posted by: Dan York at November 5, 2004 10:14 AM

Videophones and camera phones don't implement a good understanding of sense in communication. The AT&T PicturePhone went nowhere because being shown a video of someone's face while speaking to them doesn't add a lot of value in communication. Images are likely to have much more value in communication when they provide a much wider range of sense in communication. Think of a mobile "show and tell" phone that allows image sharing to be seamlessly integrated in the stream of conversation.

Consider some platitudes about communication: "Try to see things from the other person's point of view." "You have to understand the other persons circumstances." These point to the value of images of what's around a person, not images of the person's face.

A wide range of data indicate the value of integrating sense in communication. See "Sense in Communication" at www.galbithink.org for discussion of biological science, artistic masterpieces, and media history. Guided by a better understanding of human nature, service providers can create a lot of value by integrating image sharing in communication services.

Posted by: Douglas Galbi at November 5, 2004 09:32 AM

Let's see. It was 1964 at the NY World's Fair that AT&T introduced the Video phone. You would figure that after 40 years and all that has happened with telecom that if the market really wanted a video phone that it would have been here in a mass market way the same way other technologies have advanced.

Look at it another way.

If Video conferences were so hot why can you always get a video conference room at Kinkos when you need one over the past ten years.

Let me put it another way...How many people publish their Packet 8 video phone number? Is there a directory...not even the porn cam babes us it. If any industry was going to drive the adoption of the Video Cam business it would be the adult industry. That is the industry that powered the growth of the VCR, DVD, Streaming and is now erroding the print sector. So until you start seeing lots of Video cam one on one business there, don't hold your breath...

I'll also resist all the lewd and off color comments one could make along these lines and hope others keep those thoughts covered up...

Posted by: Andy Abramson at November 4, 2004 09:44 AM

Video has the benefit that it allows for additional feedback in the conversation when things are uncertain. Text alone can lead to misunderstandings, even with emoticons - and voice isn't much better on its own.

When broadband becomes more of a reality, or better compression codecs are available, video will probably take off - after all, almost every sci-fi future has videophones :>

Posted by: Duncan at November 4, 2004 04:14 AM