November 3, 1997
Videoconferencing on the Net
By Bob O'Donnell
The idea of watching video on a computer has been around for several years now, but the
concept has never really caught on. So I'm eager to see what happens when it comes to
videoconferencing via the Internet.
My curiosity was sparked by the recent introduction of Connectix's QuickCam VC, a $99
videoconferencing solution for Windows 95 PCs that includes a color camera and
videoconferencing software. Connectix has apparently had success selling previous versions
of its QuickCam cameras, but my instinct (as well a Connectix white paper) suggests that
they were primarily sold as novelty items to PC power users. The new version is by far the
least-expensive option for videoconferencing on PCs, however, and at less than $100, the
price is bound to attract the attention of more mainstream users.
But even though the QuickCam VC may overcome price objections, I still wonder whether
business users are really going to use videoconferencing applications on the Net. Now I
should admit that I've yet to even try Internet telephony because the demonstrations I've
seen have all left me pretty underwhelmed. Like everyone else, I've read predictions that
phone calls over the Internet will make a significant dent in the traditional
long-distance business. Still, I'm not convinced. Call me lazy, but as far as I can see,
it's too much of a hassle to get everything working properly. Until I've got a handset
with its own keypad attached to my monitor that takes care of all the routing and works
just like a normal telephone, I probably won't use Internet telephony as anything more
than an interesting experiment. Somehow, I don't think I'm the only one.
Similarly, although the concept of videophone calls has a certain appeal, I can't help
but think that it's going to be a novelty for a while. Of course, part of the problem is
that the technology is still in its infancy. The Common Interchange Format standard of a
352-by-288-pixel window seems downright minuscule on today's 1,024-by-768-pixel monitors.
And although the quoted 15-frames-per-second transfer rates sound good in theory, the
disappointing reality is that today's low-speed Internet connections often drag those
numbers into the difficult-to-watch sub-10-frames-per-second area.
Of course, the technology will improve. In time, we'll see big windows and high frame
rates even on lower-end machines. I think the bigger problem for videoconferencing is
cultural: Most people aren't comfortable being seen while they're talking. That reason
alone may greatly impede the acceptance of videoconferencing -- on the Net or anywhere
else. (Don't forget that some of the first videophones were introduced by AT&T in the
1960s, yet they still haven't caught on more than 30 years later.)
There's a certain anonymity associated with phone calls that is taken away by
videoconferencing. Although some will find a kind of voyeuristic appeal in videophones
(Connectix's white paper, for example, refers to the growing interest in videoconferencing
for socializing and dating purposes), I think many people will be put off by this
intrusion into a previously private space.
I have to admit that I'm somewhat torn by my own prediction. I believe strongly that
the PC is evolving into a general-purpose communications device, and video is bound to be
a critical part of its overall mix. And as people get used to the concept of being seen
while talking, I'm sure their initial anxieties will disappear. No one feels uncomfortable
leaving messages on answering machines anymore, although many of us did when they first
appeared. In the meantime, though, I think videoconferencing on the Net is going to take a
little longer to take hold than many predictions suggest.
©
Copyright 1997, by InfoWorld Publishing Corp., a
subsidiary of IDG Communications, Inc. Reprinted from InfoWorld,
155 Bovet Road, San Mateo, CA 94402. Further reproduction is prohibited.
