the Jetson-esque future, it was an old idea even then. Popular science publications in the 1870s imagined a visual device called a telephonoscope. In 1891, Alexander Graham Bell predicted that phone calls could become visual based on “seeing by electricity.” Science fiction writers had long used videophones as a signifier of a technologically advanced civilization.

But when the first commercial versions appeared, the reality was less than dazzling. The Picturephone flopped. Yes, one reason was that it was crazy expensive. But even when webcams became basic equipment, and software like Skype, iChat, and GoogleTalk made it easy to live the Picturephone dream on the desktop, for free, video calling was no big whoop. It formed a nice part of our communications toolkit but no more. Though most of us are now equipped to make the switch from a text chat to a videoconference—it takes just a mouseclick—we seldom do so. Connecting without video offers the same advantage that the old joke ascribes to masturbation: You don’t have to look your best.

So it will be interesting to watch what happens with Apple’s FaceTime, the first really good mobile implementation of video calling. Built into the iPhone 4, it’s ridiculously easy to use. The phone has two cameras: In addition to the standard one on the back for shooting pictures and video, there’s a front-mounted lens for video calls.

For now, FaceTime is available only when both parties are using iPhone 4s over Wi-Fi connections. But let’s assume that those restrictions fade away. (Apple says that it sees FaceTime as an open standard, so users might eventually be able to connect with heretics peering into Droids or BlackBerrys.) Will we want to make FaceTime calls? Personally, I found using FaceTime to transform a phone call into a video conversation rather stressful. The effort might be worthwhile for couples separated by vast distances, but for most chats, who needs (or wants) to see the other party? Besides, phone calls are much more pleasant and productive when you preserve the illusion that the other party is giving you their undivided attention, a deception that’s impossible to maintain under the unblinking gaze of a camera.

Also, using FaceTime in public places is awkward. You have to hold the phone at arm’s length—otherwise, your face fills the screen like some Diane Arbus outtake. To observers, this maneuver makes you look like a dork.

I’m still really excited about FaceTime, though. But it’s because of what happens when you use it with the other camera—the one on the rear of the phone. When you do that, FaceTime turns your phone into a live videofeed.

So instead of seeing you, the other person on the call can see what you’re seeing. I expect people to use FaceTime when they go to concerts, meetings, or the zoo. (“Look, Grandma, Timmy’s taunting the tiger!”) Another inevitable development will be a FaceTime equivalent of the iPhone’s Send to YouTube video option: a one-click way to share your current reality with the world.

This makes everybody a potential live-video broadcaster. After Rolling Stone recently documented overly candid remarks from the staff of a four-star general, people wondered whether sources should just refuse to let journalists engage in so-called fly-on-the-wall journalism. Maybe so, but with technology like FaceTime, mobile devices will place a billion flies on as many walls. Every phone will become a window onto someone else’s point of view, producing a phenomenon way crazier than the telephonoscope prophets ever imagined.

Email Cette adresse email est protégée contre les robots des spammeurs, vous devez activer Javascript pour la voir. .

Authors: Steven Levy

to know more click here