> on that note , there's a really nice demo on the intervoice site where > he books a flight with his cellphone. > The interesting bit is that he does it hands free, while looking at > their booking web app on his cell's browser. > The interface lets him choose what medium to use, so he says the date, > but clicks on the flight selection. > All along the Ivr and the screen are kept in sync.
> Simple, but stunning.
> if anyone wants, I will try and dig out the URL.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 16:02, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul can you expand on what you mean when you said "But, we also > > haven't really done much with the voice itself."?
> > Regards
> > Lee
> > On Mar 1, 4:46 pm, "Paul Golding" <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good point Adrian. Conversation and voice are not synonymous. Multi- > >> modal > >> conversations, lifestreaming, and telepresence are undoubtedly the > >> future of > >> 'augmented' human interaction - not necessarily at a distance either.
> >> On top of this, there is still plenty of innovation to be had in > >> the vocal > >> part of human interaction, which largely remains untouched by > >> technology > >> except carrying it over long distances - telephony. There has been > >> little > >> technological innovation based on speech processing, whether in the > >> control > >> plane or the content plane. Much of the efforts with VoIP have > >> focussed on > >> the control plane only - SIP 'signalling' and so forth, and we > >> haven't seen > >> much yet in terms of voice mash-ups etc. But, we also haven't > >> really done > >> much with the voice itself.
> >> That aside, there's plenty of mileage to reinvent the 'phone' part > >> of mobile > >> devices whilst a distinct 'phone function' exists, most likely for > >> a few > >> years to come due to the momentum behind the thing we call 'mobile > >> telephony' versus 'mobile computing.' iPhone has given us 'visual > >> voicemail', which seems useful, but there are lots of other ideas > >> out there > >> and many still to be invented.
> >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM, adrian cockcroft > >> <adrian.cockcr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> The central position of short one-to-one voice based conversations > >>> in > >>> this discussion is an anachronism imposed by the limitations of > >>> technology, complexity and cost.
> >>> Conversations include various forms of presence/location indication, > >>> instant/SMS messaging, email, social-nets, voice and video, and are > >>> inherently many to many.
> >>> Look at the feature set and usage patterns of tools like Skype to > >>> see > >>> the trend. Turn on a skype video call with someone and just leave it > >>> on for a few hours in the background, no need to actually talk all > >>> the > >>> time. I've done this with my wife when I'm staying away from home.
> >>> Think about a portable always-on full featured copy of Skype in your > >>> pocket, broadcasting your presence, location, ambience (local > >>> sounds) > >>> and video of your surroundings. Think of kids growing up with that > >>> capability and their ability to manage and filter presence streams. > >>> How about having your partner's presence running in your background > >>> all the time, intimately binding you together. It may creep you out, > >>> but give some teenagers that capability and you will see a new breed > >>> of behaviors.
> >>> Adrian
> >>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:23 AM, pgolding <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lee
> >>>> I read Brough's blog response to this question. He reframed your > >>>> question by suggesting that the word "phone" was too limiting. > >>>> That's > >>>> true if you have something else in mind other than telephony, > >>>> which > >>>> clearly the commentator's on this thread all do. I'm not > >>>> dismissing > >>>> the importance of discussing the perfect mobile device - and there > >>>> have been various attempts to universally categorise and define > >>>> such a > >>>> device - but I think that it would still be an interesting > >>>> discussion > >>>> to brainstorm the ideal *phone* too.
> >>>> We have grown used to two things. Firstly, that telephony is just > >>>> about vocalising at a distance, and that's it. Secondly, that > >>>> telephony networks are meant to be transparent - that they are > >>>> only > >>>> meant to collapse distance (tele) to nothing, not anything else. > >>>> These > >>>> two ideas have led to a strong mindset that telephony is a done > >>>> deal - > >>>> there's nothing more to add. This mindset is so pervasive that > >>>> even > >>>> VoIP is seen to be 'telephony' over a transparent network, just > >>>> we're > >>>> doing it more efficiently using IP etc. Furthermore, many > >>>> commentators > >>>> with software/IP backgrounds often talk about voice as 'just > >>>> another > >>>> mode' of communication. In other words, they have collapsed all > >>>> the > >>>> potential of voice into a single dimension - just another mode. > >>>> In an > >>>> era of massive computing power and signal processing advances, > >>>> there > >>>> is still so much that can be done with voice, especially if it > >>>> were > >>>> available to innovators via an open platform, not a closed switch.
> >>>> Think of it this way. Berner's Lee asked the question 'what can > >>>> i do > >>>> with the humble page of a science journal if I use a computer?' > >>>> and we > >>>> ended up with the web page and a loci of innovation that seems > >>>> to have > >>>> no bounds. What if we ask 'what can i do with the humble > >>>> conversation > >>>> if i use a computer?' and we end up with the......????
> >>>> Given that conversations take place in all kinds of contexts and > >>>> places - the fact that we have a mobile device with us makes it > >>>> the > >>>> ideal platform with which to reinvent voice-based communications.
> >>>> On 25 Feb, 19:18, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > Lets start a thread to gather thoughts on what the perfect phone > >>> would > >>>> > be. I'd came across the OHA magic phone video ( > >>> http://www.youtube.com/ > >>>> > watch?v=jWtFeIw8MVM) which got my mind thinking about > >>>> gathering more > >>>> > serious input from others.
> >>>> > I will throw in one just to start with: a perfect phone would > >>>> help > >>> two > >>>> > parties meeting up to find each other simply by showing Left/ > >>>> Right/ > >>>> > Forward/Back arrows. This would save the ~4 calls I need to > >>>> place, > >>>> > getting irratated each time to ask my partner "where exactly are > >>> you?" > >>>> > when we both arrange to meet out somwhere new (her responses are > >>>> > somewhat vague). It would also be nice if it could show you > >>>> what mode > >>>> > of transportation the other person was on (fairly easy to work > >>>> out I > >>>> > believe with a cheap accelerometer) - this would mean you > >>>> would know > >>>> > when the other person had actuall left the house etc. so you > >>>> could > >>>> > factor that in so as not to arrive too early.
> >>>> > I've got plenty more...But lets see what others have in mind.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Dryburgh" <drybur...@gmail.com> To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com Sent: 01 March 2008 19:30:15 o'clock (GMT) Europe/London Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
URL would be nice.
On 01/03/2008, Tim Panton <t...@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
> on that note , there's a really nice demo on the intervoice site where > he books a flight with his cellphone. > The interesting bit is that he does it hands free, while looking at > their booking web app on his cell's browser. > The interface lets him choose what medium to use, so he says the date, > but clicks on the flight selection. > All along the Ivr and the screen are kept in sync.
> Simple, but stunning.
> if anyone wants, I will try and dig out the URL.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 16:02, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul can you expand on what you mean when you said "But, we also > > haven't really done much with the voice itself."?
> > Regards
> > Lee
> > On Mar 1, 4:46 pm, "Paul Golding" <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good point Adrian. Conversation and voice are not synonymous. Multi- > >> modal > >> conversations, lifestreaming, and telepresence are undoubtedly the > >> future of > >> 'augmented' human interaction - not necessarily at a distance either.
> >> On top of this, there is still plenty of innovation to be had in > >> the vocal > >> part of human interaction, which largely remains untouched by > >> technology > >> except carrying it over long distances - telephony. There has been > >> little > >> technological innovation based on speech processing, whether in the > >> control > >> plane or the content plane. Much of the efforts with VoIP have > >> focussed on > >> the control plane only - SIP 'signalling' and so forth, and we > >> haven't seen > >> much yet in terms of voice mash-ups etc. But, we also haven't > >> really done > >> much with the voice itself.
> >> That aside, there's plenty of mileage to reinvent the 'phone' part > >> of mobile > >> devices whilst a distinct 'phone function' exists, most likely for > >> a few > >> years to come due to the momentum behind the thing we call 'mobile > >> telephony' versus 'mobile computing.' iPhone has given us 'visual > >> voicemail', which seems useful, but there are lots of other ideas > >> out there > >> and many still to be invented.
> >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM, adrian cockcroft > >> <adrian.cockcr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> The central position of short one-to-one voice based conversations > >>> in > >>> this discussion is an anachronism imposed by the limitations of > >>> technology, complexity and cost.
> >>> Conversations include various forms of presence/location indication, > >>> instant/SMS messaging, email, social-nets, voice and video, and are > >>> inherently many to many.
> >>> Look at the feature set and usage patterns of tools like Skype to > >>> see > >>> the trend. Turn on a skype video call with someone and just leave it > >>> on for a few hours in the background, no need to actually talk all > >>> the > >>> time. I've done this with my wife when I'm staying away from home.
> >>> Think about a portable always-on full featured copy of Skype in your > >>> pocket, broadcasting your presence, location, ambience (local > >>> sounds) > >>> and video of your surroundings. Think of kids growing up with that > >>> capability and their ability to manage and filter presence streams. > >>> How about having your partner's presence running in your background > >>> all the time, intimately binding you together. It may creep you out, > >>> but give some teenagers that capability and you will see a new breed > >>> of behaviors.
> >>> Adrian
> >>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:23 AM, pgolding <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lee
> >>>> I read Brough's blog response to this question. He reframed your > >>>> question by suggesting that the word "phone" was too limiting. > >>>> That's > >>>> true if you have something else in mind other than telephony, > >>>> which > >>>> clearly the commentator's on this thread all do. I'm not > >>>> dismissing > >>>> the importance of discussing the perfect mobile device - and there > >>>> have been various attempts to universally categorise and define > >>>> such a > >>>> device - but I think that it would still be an interesting > >>>> discussion > >>>> to brainstorm the ideal *phone* too.
> >>>> We have grown used to two things. Firstly, that telephony is just > >>>> about vocalising at a distance, and that's it. Secondly, that > >>>> telephony networks are meant to be transparent - that they are > >>>> only > >>>> meant to collapse distance (tele) to nothing, not anything else. > >>>> These > >>>> two ideas have led to a strong mindset that telephony is a done > >>>> deal - > >>>> there's nothing more to add. This mindset is so pervasive that > >>>> even > >>>> VoIP is seen to be 'telephony' over a transparent network, just > >>>> we're > >>>> doing it more efficiently using IP etc. Furthermore, many > >>>> commentators > >>>> with software/IP backgrounds often talk about voice as 'just > >>>> another > >>>> mode' of communication. In other words, they have collapsed all > >>>> the > >>>> potential of voice into a single dimension - just another mode. > >>>> In an > >>>> era of massive computing power and signal processing advances, > >>>> there > >>>> is still so much that can be done with voice, especially if it > >>>> were > >>>> available to innovators via an open platform, not a closed switch.
> >>>> Think of it this way. Berner's Lee asked the question 'what can > >>>> i do > >>>> with the humble page of a science journal if I use a computer?' > >>>> and we > >>>> ended up with the web page and a loci of innovation that seems > >>>> to have > >>>> no bounds. What if we ask 'what can i do with the humble > >>>> conversation > >>>> if i use a computer?' and we end up with the......????
> >>>> Given that conversations take place in all kinds of contexts and > >>>> places - the fact that we have a mobile device with us makes it > >>>> the > >>>> ideal platform with which to reinvent voice-based communications.
> >>>> On 25 Feb, 19:18, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > Lets start a thread to gather thoughts on what the perfect phone > >>> would > >>>> > be. I'd came across the OHA magic phone video ( > >>> http://www.youtube.com/ > >>>> > watch?v=jWtFeIw8MVM) which got my mind thinking about > >>>> gathering more > >>>> > serious input from others.
> >>>> > I will throw in one just to start with: a perfect phone would > >>>> help > >>> two > >>>> > parties meeting up to find each other simply by showing Left/ > >>>> Right/ > >>>> > Forward/Back arrows. This would save the ~4 calls I need to > >>>> place, > >>>> > getting irratated each time to ask my partner "where exactly are > >>> you?" > >>>> > when we both arrange to meet out somwhere new (her responses are > >>>> > somewhat vague). It would also be nice if it could show you > >>>> what mode > >>>> > of transportation the other person was on (fairly easy to work > >>>> out I > >>>> > believe with a cheap accelerometer) - this would mean you > >>>> would know > >>>> > when the other person had actuall left the house etc. so you > >>>> could > >>>> > factor that in so as not to arrive too early.
> >>>> > I've got plenty more...But lets see what others have in mind.
Using voice is cute and useful -- but it's a nicely constrained example so we need to be careful about generalizing from it I find these task-oriented examples to fail badly outside their comfort zone.
I want, for example, to interpose my own software assistant between me and sites. Web 2.0 is poised to be an utter disaster in bringing us back to the days before screen scraping when I had to manually interact with every site.
In this example I would like to mix in seat guru.
The end of the demo was pure fraud -- he gave a really bad example of what would happen if it listed every seat but then he said that he chose what information. No -- it was carefully staged and does not generalize because it's all defined by a service provider.
And in the end he called a live agent because, well, dagnabit, it's he had to speak to the man behind the curtain.
[mailto:EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim H. Panton Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 15:56 To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Dryburgh" <drybur...@gmail.com> To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com Sent: 01 March 2008 19:30:15 o'clock (GMT) Europe/London Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
URL would be nice.
On 01/03/2008, Tim Panton <t...@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
> on that note , there's a really nice demo on the intervoice site where > he books a flight with his cellphone. > The interesting bit is that he does it hands free, while looking at > their booking web app on his cell's browser. > The interface lets him choose what medium to use, so he says the date, > but clicks on the flight selection. > All along the Ivr and the screen are kept in sync.
> Simple, but stunning.
> if anyone wants, I will try and dig out the URL.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 16:02, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul can you expand on what you mean when you said "But, we also > > haven't really done much with the voice itself."?
> > Regards
> > Lee
> > On Mar 1, 4:46 pm, "Paul Golding" <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good point Adrian. Conversation and voice are not synonymous. Multi- > >> modal > >> conversations, lifestreaming, and telepresence are undoubtedly the > >> future of > >> 'augmented' human interaction - not necessarily at a distance either.
> >> On top of this, there is still plenty of innovation to be had in > >> the vocal > >> part of human interaction, which largely remains untouched by > >> technology > >> except carrying it over long distances - telephony. There has been > >> little > >> technological innovation based on speech processing, whether in the > >> control > >> plane or the content plane. Much of the efforts with VoIP have > >> focussed on > >> the control plane only - SIP 'signalling' and so forth, and we > >> haven't seen > >> much yet in terms of voice mash-ups etc. But, we also haven't > >> really done > >> much with the voice itself.
> >> That aside, there's plenty of mileage to reinvent the 'phone' part > >> of mobile > >> devices whilst a distinct 'phone function' exists, most likely for > >> a few > >> years to come due to the momentum behind the thing we call 'mobile > >> telephony' versus 'mobile computing.' iPhone has given us 'visual > >> voicemail', which seems useful, but there are lots of other ideas > >> out there > >> and many still to be invented.
> >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM, adrian cockcroft > >> <adrian.cockcr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> The central position of short one-to-one voice based conversations > >>> in > >>> this discussion is an anachronism imposed by the limitations of > >>> technology, complexity and cost.
> >>> Conversations include various forms of presence/location indication, > >>> instant/SMS messaging, email, social-nets, voice and video, and are > >>> inherently many to many.
> >>> Look at the feature set and usage patterns of tools like Skype to > >>> see > >>> the trend. Turn on a skype video call with someone and just leave it > >>> on for a few hours in the background, no need to actually talk all > >>> the > >>> time. I've done this with my wife when I'm staying away from home.
> >>> Think about a portable always-on full featured copy of Skype in your > >>> pocket, broadcasting your presence, location, ambience (local > >>> sounds) > >>> and video of your surroundings. Think of kids growing up with that > >>> capability and their ability to manage and filter presence streams. > >>> How about having your partner's presence running in your background > >>> all the time, intimately binding you together. It may creep you out, > >>> but give some teenagers that capability and you will see a new breed > >>> of behaviors.
> >>> Adrian
> >>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:23 AM, pgolding <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lee
> >>>> I read Brough's blog response to this question. He reframed your > >>>> question by suggesting that the word "phone" was too limiting. > >>>> That's > >>>> true if you have something else in mind other than telephony, > >>>> which > >>>> clearly the commentator's on this thread all do. I'm not > >>>> dismissing > >>>> the importance of discussing the perfect mobile device - and there > >>>> have been various attempts to universally categorise and define > >>>> such a > >>>> device - but I think that it would still be an interesting > >>>> discussion > >>>> to brainstorm the ideal *phone* too.
> >>>> We have grown used to two things. Firstly, that telephony is just > >>>> about vocalising at a distance, and that's it. Secondly, that > >>>> telephony networks are meant to be transparent - that they are > >>>> only > >>>> meant to collapse distance (tele) to nothing, not anything else. > >>>> These > >>>> two ideas have led to a strong mindset that telephony is a done > >>>> deal - > >>>> there's nothing more to add. This mindset is so pervasive that > >>>> even > >>>> VoIP is seen to be 'telephony' over a transparent network, just > >>>> we're > >>>> doing it more efficiently using IP etc. Furthermore, many > >>>> commentators > >>>> with software/IP backgrounds often talk about voice as 'just > >>>> another > >>>> mode' of communication. In other words, they have collapsed all > >>>> the > >>>> potential of voice into a single dimension - just another mode. > >>>> In an > >>>> era of massive computing power and signal processing advances, > >>>> there > >>>> is still so much that can be done with voice, especially if it > >>>> were > >>>> available to innovators via an open platform, not a closed switch.
> >>>> Think of it this way. Berner's Lee asked the question 'what can > >>>> i do > >>>> with the humble page of a science journal if I use a computer?' > >>>> and we > >>>> ended up with the web page and a loci of innovation that seems > >>>> to have > >>>> no bounds. What if we ask 'what can i do with the humble > >>>> conversation > >>>> if i use a computer?' and we end up with the......????
> >>>> Given that conversations take place in all kinds of contexts and > >>>> places - the fact that we have a mobile device with us makes it > >>>> the > >>>> ideal platform with which to reinvent voice-based communications.
> >>>> On 25 Feb, 19:18, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > Lets start a thread to gather thoughts on what the perfect phone > >>> would > >>>> > be. I'd came across the OHA magic phone video ( > >>> http://www.youtube.com/ > >>>> > watch?v=jWtFeIw8MVM) which got my mind thinking about > >>>> gathering more > >>>> > serious input from others.
> >>>> > I will throw in one just to start with: a perfect phone would > >>>> help > >>> two > >>>> > parties meeting up to find each other simply by showing Left/ > >>>> Right/ > >>>> > Forward/Back arrows. This would save the ~4 calls I need to > >>>> place, > >>>> > getting irratated each time to ask my partner "where exactly are > >>> you?" > >>>> > when we both arrange to meet out somwhere new (her responses are > >>>> > somewhat vague). It would also be nice if it could show you > >>>> what mode > >>>> > of transportation the other person was on (fairly easy to work > >>>> out I > >>>> > believe with a cheap accelerometer) - this would mean you > >>>> would know > >>>> > when the other person had actuall left the house etc. so you > >>>> could > >>>> > factor that in so as not to arrive too early.
> >>>> > I've got plenty more...But lets see what others have in mind.
Bob question for you - when you say "Web 2.0 is poised to be an utter disaster in bringing us back to the days before screen scraping when I had to manually interact with every site." what do you mean out of interest? A lot of Web 2.0 sites rely on screen scrapping to gather data (brittle and very time consuming) or at the best per site API calls (e.g. to overlay Craiglist apartment rentals on Google Maps) - whereas the Semantic Web technologies provide a way to share data that does cascade, with perfect data interchange.
Regards
Lee
On 01/03/2008, Bob Frankston <Bob19-0...@bobf.frankston.com> wrote:
> Using voice is cute and useful -- but it's a nicely constrained example so > we need to be careful about generalizing from it I find these task-oriented > examples to fail badly outside their comfort zone.
> I want, for example, to interpose my own software assistant between me and > sites. Web 2.0 is poised to be an utter disaster in bringing us back to the > days before screen scraping when I had to manually interact with every site.
> In this example I would like to mix in seat guru.
> The end of the demo was pure fraud -- he gave a really bad example of what > would happen if it listed every seat but then he said that he chose what > information. No -- it was carefully staged and does not generalize because > it's all defined by a service provider.
> And in the end he called a live agent because, well, dagnabit, it's he had > to speak to the man behind the curtain.
> -----Original Message----- > From: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com > [mailto:EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > Tim H. Panton > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 15:56 > To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lee Dryburgh" <drybur...@gmail.com> > To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com > Sent: 01 March 2008 19:30:15 o'clock (GMT) Europe/London > Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
> URL would be nice.
> On 01/03/2008, Tim Panton <t...@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
> > on that note , there's a really nice demo on the intervoice site where > > he books a flight with his cellphone. > > The interesting bit is that he does it hands free, while looking at > > their booking web app on his cell's browser. > > The interface lets him choose what medium to use, so he says the date, > > but clicks on the flight selection. > > All along the Ivr and the screen are kept in sync.
> > Simple, but stunning.
> > if anyone wants, I will try and dig out the URL.
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > On Mar 1, 2008, at 16:02, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Paul can you expand on what you mean when you said "But, we also > > > haven't really done much with the voice itself."?
> > > Regards
> > > Lee
> > > On Mar 1, 4:46 pm, "Paul Golding" <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Good point Adrian. Conversation and voice are not synonymous. Multi- > > >> modal > > >> conversations, lifestreaming, and telepresence are undoubtedly the > > >> future of > > >> 'augmented' human interaction - not necessarily at a distance either.
> > >> On top of this, there is still plenty of innovation to be had in > > >> the vocal > > >> part of human interaction, which largely remains untouched by > > >> technology > > >> except carrying it over long distances - telephony. There has been > > >> little > > >> technological innovation based on speech processing, whether in the > > >> control > > >> plane or the content plane. Much of the efforts with VoIP have > > >> focussed on > > >> the control plane only - SIP 'signalling' and so forth, and we > > >> haven't seen > > >> much yet in terms of voice mash-ups etc. But, we also haven't > > >> really done > > >> much with the voice itself.
> > >> That aside, there's plenty of mileage to reinvent the 'phone' part > > >> of mobile > > >> devices whilst a distinct 'phone function' exists, most likely for > > >> a few > > >> years to come due to the momentum behind the thing we call 'mobile > > >> telephony' versus 'mobile computing.' iPhone has given us 'visual > > >> voicemail', which seems useful, but there are lots of other ideas > > >> out there > > >> and many still to be invented.
> > >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM, adrian cockcroft > > >> <adrian.cockcr...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote:
> > >>> The central position of short one-to-one voice based conversations > > >>> in > > >>> this discussion is an anachronism imposed by the limitations of > > >>> technology, complexity and cost.
> > >>> Conversations include various forms of presence/location indication, > > >>> instant/SMS messaging, email, social-nets, voice and video, and are > > >>> inherently many to many.
> > >>> Look at the feature set and usage patterns of tools like Skype to > > >>> see > > >>> the trend. Turn on a skype video call with someone and just leave it > > >>> on for a few hours in the background, no need to actually talk all > > >>> the > > >>> time. I've done this with my wife when I'm staying away from home.
> > >>> Think about a portable always-on full featured copy of Skype in your > > >>> pocket, broadcasting your presence, location, ambience (local > > >>> sounds) > > >>> and video of your surroundings. Think of kids growing up with that > > >>> capability and their ability to manage and filter presence streams. > > >>> How about having your partner's presence running in your background > > >>> all the time, intimately binding you together. It may creep you out, > > >>> but give some teenagers that capability and you will see a new breed > > >>> of behaviors.
> > >>> Adrian
> > >>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:23 AM, pgolding <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Lee
> > >>>> I read Brough's blog response to this question. He reframed your > > >>>> question by suggesting that the word "phone" was too limiting. > > >>>> That's > > >>>> true if you have something else in mind other than telephony, > > >>>> which > > >>>> clearly the commentator's on this thread all do. I'm not > > >>>> dismissing > > >>>> the importance of discussing the perfect mobile device - and there > > >>>> have been various attempts to universally categorise and define > > >>>> such a > > >>>> device - but I think that it would still be an interesting > > >>>> discussion > > >>>> to brainstorm the ideal *phone* too.
> > >>>> We have grown used to two things. Firstly, that telephony is just > > >>>> about vocalising at a distance, and that's it. Secondly, that > > >>>> telephony networks are meant to be transparent - that they are > > >>>> only > > >>>> meant to collapse distance (tele) to nothing, not anything else. > > >>>> These > > >>>> two ideas have led to a strong mindset that telephony is a done > > >>>> deal - > > >>>> there's nothing more to add. This mindset is so pervasive that > > >>>> even > > >>>> VoIP is seen to be 'telephony' over a transparent network, just > > >>>> we're > > >>>> doing it more efficiently using IP etc. Furthermore, many > > >>>> commentators > > >>>> with software/IP backgrounds often talk about voice as 'just > > >>>> another > > >>>> mode' of communication. In other words, they have collapsed all > > >>>> the > > >>>> potential of voice into a single dimension - just another mode. > > >>>> In an > > >>>> era of massive computing power and signal processing advances, > > >>>> there > > >>>> is still so much that can be done with voice, especially if it > > >>>> were > > >>>> available to innovators via an open platform, not a closed switch.
> > >>>> Think of it this way. Berner's Lee asked the question 'what can > > >>>> i do > > >>>> with the humble page of a science journal if I use a computer?' > > >>>> and we > > >>>> ended up with the web page and a loci of innovation that seems > > >>>> to have > > >>>> no bounds. What if we ask 'what can i do with the humble > > >>>> conversation > > >>>> if i use a computer?' and we end up with the......????
> > >>>> Given that conversations take place in all kinds of contexts and > > >>>> places - the fact that we have a mobile device with us makes it > > >>>> the > > >>>> ideal platform with which to reinvent voice-based communications.
> > >>>> On 25 Feb, 19:18, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > Lets start a thread to gather thoughts on what the perfect phone > > >>> would > > >>>> > be. I'd came across the OHA magic phone video ( > > >>> http://www.youtube.com/ > > >>>> > watch?v=jWtFeIw8MVM) which got my mind thinking about > > >>>> gathering more > > >>>> > serious input from others.
> > >>>> > I will throw in one just to start with: a perfect phone would > > >>>> help > > >>> two > > >>>> > parties meeting up to find each other simply by showing Left/ > > >>>> Right/ > > >>>> > Forward/Back arrows. This would save the ~4 calls I need to > > >>>> place, > > >>>> > getting irratated each time to ask my partner "where exactly are > > >>> you?" > > >>>> > when we both arrange to meet out somwhere new (her responses are > > >>>> > somewhat vague). It would also be nice if it could show you > > >>>> what mode > > >>>> > of transportation the other person was on (fairly easy to work > > >>>> out I
> Using voice is cute and useful -- but it's a nicely constrained > example so > we need to be careful about generalizing from it I find these task- > oriented > examples to fail badly outside their comfort zone.
> I want, for example, to interpose my own software assistant between > me and > sites. Web 2.0 is poised to be an utter disaster in bringing us back > to the > days before screen scraping when I had to manually interact with > every site.
> In this example I would like to mix in seat guru.
> The end of the demo was pure fraud -- he gave a really bad example > of what > would happen if it listed every seat but then he said that he chose > what > information. No -- it was carefully staged and does not generalize > because > it's all defined by a service provider.
> And in the end he called a live agent because, well, dagnabit, it's > he had > to speak to the man behind the curtain.
> -----Original Message----- > From: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com > [mailto:EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of > Tim H. Panton > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 15:56 > To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com > Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lee Dryburgh" <drybur...@gmail.com> > To: EmergingCommunications-public-general@googlegroups.com > Sent: 01 March 2008 19:30:15 o'clock (GMT) Europe/London > Subject: [eComm.General] Re: What would your perfect phone be?
> URL would be nice.
> On 01/03/2008, Tim Panton <t...@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>> on that note , there's a really nice demo on the intervoice site >> where >> he books a flight with his cellphone. >> The interesting bit is that he does it hands free, while looking at >> their booking web app on his cell's browser. >> The interface lets him choose what medium to use, so he says the >> date, >> but clicks on the flight selection. >> All along the Ivr and the screen are kept in sync.
>> Simple, but stunning.
>> if anyone wants, I will try and dig out the URL.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Mar 1, 2008, at 16:02, Lee <drybur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Paul can you expand on what you mean when you said "But, we also >>> haven't really done much with the voice itself."?
>>> Regards
>>> Lee
>>> On Mar 1, 4:46 pm, "Paul Golding" <goldi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Good point Adrian. Conversation and voice are not synonymous. >>>> Multi- >>>> modal >>>> conversations, lifestreaming, and telepresence are undoubtedly the >>>> future of >>>> 'augmented' human interaction - not necessarily at a distance >>>> either.
>>>> On top of this, there is still plenty of innovation to be had in >>>> the vocal >>>> part of human interaction, which largely remains untouched by >>>> technology >>>> except carrying it over long distances - telephony. There has been >>>> little >>>> technological innovation based on speech processing, whether in the >>>> control >>>> plane or the content plane. Much of the efforts with VoIP have >>>> focussed on >>>> the control plane only - SIP 'signalling' and so forth, and we >>>> haven't seen >>>> much yet in terms of voice mash-ups etc. But, we also haven't >>>> really done >>>> much with the voice itself.
>>>> That aside, there's plenty of mileage to reinvent the 'phone' part >>>> of mobile >>>> devices whilst a distinct 'phone function' exists, most likely for >>>> a few >>>> years to come due to the momentum behind the thing we call 'mobile >>>> telephony' versus 'mobile computing.' iPhone has given us 'visual >>>> voicemail', which seems useful, but there are lots of other ideas >>>> out there >>>> and many still to be invented.
>>>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM, adrian cockcroft >>>> <adrian.cockcr...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> The central position of short one-to-one voice based conversations >>>>> in >>>>> this discussion is an anachronism imposed by the limitations of >>>>> technology, complexity and cost.
>>>>> Conversations include various forms of presence/location >>>>> indication, >>>>> instant/SMS messaging, email, social-nets, voice and video, and >>>>> are >>>>> inherently many to many.
>>>>> Look at the feature set and usage patterns of tools like Skype to >>>>> see >>>>> the trend. Turn on a skype video call with someone and just >>>>> leave it >>>>> on for a few hours in the background, no need to actually talk all >>>>> the >>>>> time. I've done this with my wife when I'm staying away from home.
>>>>> Think about a portable always-on full featured copy of Skype in >>>>> your >>>>> pocket, broadcasting your presence, location, ambience (local >>>>> sounds) >>>>> and video of your surroundings. Think of kids growing up with that >>>>> capability and their ability to manage and filter presence >>>>> streams. >>>>> How about having your par
