Sachendra Y
Interaction Designer / Product Manager / Mobilist / Social Media Enthusiast
Why haven't video calls taken off
It was supposed to be the next big thing but it fizzled out like MMS
An important thing to note is you would have to use the speakerphone to do video calls (unless you’re always on BT headset or handsfree, which is not true for an overwhelming majority of people) and this compromises privacy in a big way…no one wants people nearby snooping in on their conversations.
Why do you think it hasn't taken off yet?
I will make a post about the responses I receive and will publish them in a few weeks for all to see (names are anonymous)
Clarification added June 11, 2008:
I'd like to thank everyone for responding. I've compiled the responses in the blog post below
http://sachendra.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/why-havent-video-calls-mobile-video-telephony-taken-off/
From the responses, it turns out the future of video calling isn't so bleak after all, it's got a few things going for it... I'll be covering those in a post FOR video calling in the next 2-3 days
Clarification added June 13, 2008:
I've added the post FOR video calling
http://sachendra.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/the-case-for-mobile-video-calling/
Good Answers (16)
sebastian B
Head of Business development at Ericsson Malaysia
Best Answers in: Wireless (24), Telecommunications (2), Software Development (2), Business Development (1), Business Analytics (1), Market Research and Definition (1), E-Commerce (1), Web Development (1)
Simple reason:
Nobody is taking in consideration what consumers want and the way they behave. This is a typical case were the telecom industry had put technology before the consumer understanding. Video calling has not taken off because many reasons:
1. When it was launch the price was 2 or 3 times more expensive than a voice call. Today in most of the countries is the same but there is a perception that is expensive still.
2. Handset availability. 3G handset penetration is still low. This will change dramatically in the next 2 or 3 years ,but today is an issue still. Beside, Japan were there most of the handsets are 3G(>90%), the penetration of video calls have shown a better behaviour ,10% take up.
3. User experience. Operators didn´t invest enough energy, time and money in educating customers of how to use the technology. Also, the quality of the call is still not good enough and more important, How do you know if the other part have the service configured? This experience can be frustrating.
4. No interoperability agreement in place for doing 3G calls to other operators.
5. Lack of good device configuration management for knowing if users have the right configuration or are expericing problems.
6. Privacy issues. Do you want to see your boss face , when you just wake up? Probably not.
7. Understanding user behaviour and how people use technology. THIS IS THE MAIN PROBLEM.
The ones who will drive video calls will be a different segment than the traditional cellphone user. So if any operator wants to drive this, need to understand what they want. This people is what we called digital natives, people who born with technology at a hand, wants to try new things but are very very picky, they live in the social netwotking world, use innovative ways of communication and are in the 2.0 world. Some operators understood this and are expanding videocalls to a new domain, leveraging on the web 2.0 user behaviour. So is not longer videocalls, is a new dimensions of services. Some examples:
Videoblogging. Incredible example is 3 Italy videblog, were people can leave their posts using this technology,but also follow blogs from famous football players that leave every week a videopost.
Videodating. Finding friends or dating via videocalls. Is like myspace but you can go to a full library of people who leave a videopost and interact with them. Good case in Smart phillipines targeting singleton segments.
3. Video TV. Using circuit switched you can stream live TV in a easy way and change channels using the keypad.
4. Mobile Reporter or meontv. Launched by some broadcasters but also CNN, people with a 3G phone can go live on TV to report something happening on their city. Leverage on Citizen journalism.
5. Video surveillance. Leverage on parents peace of mind. You can access via 3G videocall a camera installed at your place for checking if your kid is fine. Up to 6 callers. Launch by 3Italy and also PWCC in Japan.
6. Videoconferencing. Up to 4 people at the same time. You can have a meeting with your colleagues using this service. Launch targeting business travellers by 3Hongkong and 3Italy.
7. Video shopping. You can use circuit switched streaming for watching and buying things from this channels.
8. Video calls to PC. You can call someone from your Phone to a PC client like skype or MSN.
Some operators are grasping that Videocalling is a enabler, a tool a technology but not a killer application by itself. Video calling services need to be created thinking on the new internet user behaviour, expanding the technology to new boundaries. I´m quite optimistic about the future of this technolgy if operators unleash te real power of the consumers. Also we need to understand that telecom services follow the S-curve of innovation. Fast hype, some growth, the valley of deception, re-born, maturity and growth. Actually it took 16 years to SMS to become what is today (First SMS sent via VodafoneUK on 1992).
Perhaps the number of devices supporting video telephony. At least I dont know anyone who to video call...
Robert C
Owner, www.totalcontrolapp.com - Cellular Software Applications & Audio/Video Integration
many people don't want other's to see them when calling for a variety of reasons. i.e. - self conscious or specifically conscious for a reason, angle of camera or view is not good, not convenient to setup video calls typically (too complicated to setup, call connection takes too long, etc.), bandwidth issues (video needs to constantly buffer, video breaks up, resolution is low, slow connection, etc.), need to have the camera constantly track your face (who wants to constantly hold a device looking at their face and always adjust to keep it there).
J O
Senior Security Architect/Engineer at E-Fensive Security Strategies
Best Answers in: Information Security (33), Telecommunications (9), Software Development (5), Blogging (4), Computers and Software (4), Computer Networking (4), Enterprise Software (3), Using LinkedIn (3), Personnel Policies (2), Career Management (2), Web Development (2), Wireless (2), Purchasing (1), Event Marketing and Promotions (1), Auditing (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Employment and Labor Law (1), Events Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Corporate Governance (1), Project Management (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Small Business (1), Starting Up (1), Databases (1), Information Storage (1)
It hasn't fizzled. It hasn't become price attractive to many companies yet. Take a look at the froogle price of a semi decent video phone. $2,500.00 for one phone. Do you think the average SoHo would dish out this kind of money for a phone like this not to mention the infrastructure to support it.
Take a Fortune xxx company now. How much you think they're willing to dish out buying these phones. Might work for interoffice purposes, but there is no incentive in getting them to purchase it for clients, vendors, etc., why should they.
Videoconferencing HAS been taking off though. Its much more cost effective to get a Lifesize (see link) for conference rooms between the offices, etc. I know we sold plenty within the last two years with a couple of units we sent to the Canadian government yesterday. As for your comment on snooping, I don't worry about things like that. That's more of a concern for engineers without a clue. If properly deployed with design done beforehand, the stream can be sent intraoffice via a VPN tunnel not to mention any competent firewall engineer can have the proper rules in place.
So re-define what you mean by video calls. Do you mean the corporate level, or the end user level. Either way its not as cost effective to become worthy of deploying.
Links:
I think video calling is catching on, just not in the way you anticipate. Like many innovations, the consumer market is leading the adoption. Consumer-focused service providers such as ACN (http://www2.acneuro.com/acn/uk/) are experiencing tremendous growth in video calling features. In ACN's case, 50 percent of all new VoIP service sales include video calling.
Device costs have dropped significantly, while quality of service has risen. There are multiple video phone makers, such as LG Nortel & Grandstream, whose devices allow callers to use the handset or speakerphone. Also, there are high-quality softphones on the market, such as CounterPath's eyebeam, for which users utilize a headset. These options address the privacy concerns.
Teleconference options, for the most part, primarily target very large corporations and are out of the price range of medium-size companies. But video calling enables SMBs to experience the benefits of teleconferencing, on a smaller scale of course.
Expect to see CLECs that focus on business services to add video calling to their service packages.
Links:
David K
Principal at CSC
Best Answers in: Telecommunications (3), Wireless (3), Information Security (1)
Video call demands for much greater bandwidth with high sensitivity to latency and frame size. For the longest time, the available video codecs are just not efficient enough on its compression to effect full frame rate video call. Perhaps the recent surge on H.264 AVC may help in this regard.As such, expected user experience for video telephony is not there yet. For wireless, the demands is even more so due to finite RF resources.
There has not been adoption from equipment manufacturers to product video telephony capable devices.
Privacy is always a concern when it comes to video telephony.
As broadband adoption reaches mass adoption and deployment of next generation wireless (WiMAX and LTE), we might see video telephony adoption increases.
Szabolcs H
Business Development Director at EMG (Est Media Group)
Best Answers in: Wireless (8), E-Commerce (2), Internet Marketing (1), Graphic Design (1), Web Development (1)
Because of multitasking issues.
You can drive while on the phone, but you cannot make video phone calls while driving. Your eyes can be used for other task while using the phone. For video calling you need to have your phone in front of you, which makes other movements and task much less convenient.
David P
Infrastructure Strategy, Planning & Management (Transportation, Energy, ICT)
Best Answers in: Wireless (3), Internationalization and Localization (1), Corporate Law (1), Advertising (1)
IMHO:
PRO: I would not say it is necessarily a ‘dead’ concept. Like mobile phones and DTV for instance, which languished in small niche markets for years before becoming mainstream, it is merely a question of technology and the market catching up and the price point coming down. Like everything else under convergence, once it can be readily available and less costly along with voice, media and data as yet another example of IP-based content, videophones will probably gain a larger audience.
CON: That said, it probably has less relevance for business usage since the ability to see the other participants in a meeting is probably less important than the ability to share materials, as well as the fact that many business people like to call in while driving, relaxing at home or multitasking and may not see an advantage in seeing or being seen--indeed quite the reverse. Also particularly for mobile applications, two-way full motion video will always tend to use a lot of bandwidth relative to nearly all other applications. Lastly, in an IP based context there may be concern about the use of P2P based software at least perceptively in terms of both complexity and security.
Cheers--David
Lowell R
Technical writing and editing
Best Answers in: Corporate Governance (2), Car and Train Travel (1), Government Policy (1), Internet Marketing (1), Career Management (1), Energy and Development (1)
although video conferencing works fine for presentations, one-on-one video calls has a couple of weird problems.
first, there is a presentation problem. ordinary people on a video phone don't look like people on video should look. we're all used to seeing people on television who are in make up, well lighted, and in carefully chosen clothing. on a video phone, the presentation of an individual is underwhelming.
second, if you've ever video conferenced with someone you may have noticed that they are never looking directly at you. in fact they are looking at their video monitor. so you end up with a video conference where the participants never seem to look directly at each other. without direct eye contact, the point of video conferencing is kind of broken.
in my opinion, video calls haven't taken off because they are a little disconcerting in use and distract from the actual collaboration they are supposed to enhance.
One thing you can rule out is that it is too expensive. My company markets a videophone that is $199 and $24.95/month with unlimited calling to the U.S. and 11 other countries.
There have been a lot of good responses so far. I think it comes down to a couple of things, awareness of its availability and how easy it is to use. I think videophones are nearing the tipping point. I've heard it described that they are on the same path as HD TVs. 2-3 years ago they were out there but few people had them and after Christmas of 2008 it seemed like everyone had one.
The videophone that I market comes out of the box ready to go. Just plug in a broadband internet connection and the power cord and you are ready to go. No configuration needed. It has its own phone number that you select the area code and exchange. It is extremely portable and can be setup anywhere. I take my on business trips and vacations to talk to my friends, family and business partners.
The audio/video in/out ports also allows for some neat combinations that you might not think of at first. I'm working with our church to get video phones into the hands of our missionaries that we support. This would be a great way for them to either give a missionary update (send their screen to our video projection system and the audio to the house speakers) to the church or just sit in on a service on a Sunday morning (send the video as the input to the videophone.)
Imagine grandparents that live out of state being able to be at their grandkids birthday parties or watch them open up Christmas gifts. There are so many options out there for the videophone.
Right now the market is being driven by people that want to see each other. That would be families that live out of state or country, people that travel on business that want to see their families every night. There are also uses like distance learning and telecommuting.
Video calling will be the norm in the next 5-8 years. Audio only calls will be as useful as radios are now. We get everything we need from TV. Who wants only the audio portion of our favorite shows? In the very near future I believe it will be considered rude to call someone and only have audio available.
Links:
Ryan M also suggests these experts on this topic:
Vic U
Associate Professor at Auburn University and Owner, interactive Point of View
Best Answers in: Education and Schools (1), Occupational Training (1), Enterprise Software (1), Computers and Software (1), Software Development (1)
I think that most of the resistance is due to a combination of psychology and a subtle, individual cost-benefit analysis.
Most video calls are designed to extend the concept of a phone call to include video representations of the speakers. As a potential user, I have to ask myself two questions:
1. How do I look?
2. What will the other party learn from seeing me and what will I learn from seeing the other party?
In most cases, the answers aren't reassuring. I look like a grizzled old coot with a scowl (I'm squinting at the screen). The other party will probably look a lot worse than they would in person. That won't help either one of us and neither of us will go very far out of our way to use it. One or other or both of us might gently resist the technology even if it is easily available (e.g., video skype enabled for both parties?)
There is another scenario, however, where video would be a very welcome addition. When I speak to someone, I often want to show them something as the basis for discussion. It could be a piece of equipment, or a location, or a software application, or ...
If I can show video of something that I want the other party to see, that is very appealing. We see that in the growing popularity of desktop sharing programs like Yugma. When that is extended to include video of external points of interest, then I think a lot more people will be interested.
We are getting close to that with video phone cameras. As phones appear that have microphones on both sides bandwidth increases to the point that the can stream video to the other party, then video conversations will take off.
1. Look at the way these idiots installed our equipment. Any ideas on how to fix it?
2. Look what I found at this trade show?
3. We're in the meeting with .... say hello.
Just my opinion, but I think these are the types of conversations (along with all the stupid college frat prank videos) that will drive interest.
Robert A
Web Developer @ CBS Interactive
Best Answers in: Web Development (8), Blogging (2), Engineering (1), Enterprise Software (1), Computers and Software (1), Information Security (1)
1. Cost
2. Compatibility - Many require same brand end to end... making it not very easy to use outside of an organization.
3. Bandwidth - Expensive, limitations.
4. Quality - mediocre.
5. Benefits - Is there any? It's still remote, and not in person. Pretty much anything you can do with video calls you can do over the phone. Presentations can be done using something like WebEx... so what's the advantage for all this cost and complexity?
There's definitely value in it for some uses... but enough to go mainstream... not really. Most people don't have a need. Even if the technology improved... that wouldn't create a need.
That said, for those who do have a need... it's a great thing.
No company has crossed this CHASM, established a compelling 'product' and achieved any kind of market dominance. IT folks certainly don't want to deal with the implementation role out. The economic buyers and managers are not compelled because it doesn't lower the cost of doing something that is costing them too much now, and they certainly don't care about adding nice to have enhancements. Until a company establishes these it will remain a 'nice to have'.
That being said, "Video calling" might really have already evolved into something else that is compelling - folks are out their trying; just think about webcams, webinars, video enabled mobile phones, podcasts, teleconferencing and YouTube...
Laura B
Content Developer + Community Builder
Best Answers in: Search Marketing (1), Career Management (1)
If you saw my hair right now, you'd have your answer!
I'm only joking with you just a little -- there's actually quite a bit of truth in my answer.
In a fast-paced world, an audio-only system yields a huge time savings for many of our day-to-day conversations. You won't gain much by looking at my face if you call me to ask a quick question or confirm an appointment. You might even be turned off, not because I'm especially gruesome, but because I haven't prepared my makeup, hair, lighting, or costuming for a high-quality video experience.
Now, let's talk about those "special" circumstances when my face and body language can communicate an important message. If one of my goals is to make a positive impression, I need to get very Hollywood, very fast.
I might look like a competent professional if you walked into my office right now -- but to look decent on camera, I'm going to need a whole team working on my appearance! This is the TV and Video age -- looking "kind of OK, we get the idea, we know you're not a model or actress or anything" -- that's hardly the impression a professional longs to make.
It really is about image. If you can't project a Hollywood standard in a video call (and most cannot) -- it's probably a good idea to stick to audio calls.
I'd argue none of those. Simply because you don't want the other person to see the funny faces you're pulling on the call, how bored you look by what's being said or the person you're having an affair with in the background.
I think video calling types have merged here, there is a substantial difference in the video calling inter-office (group) and video calling on mobile phones (Individual) that has to be considered.
In terms of office appliances and video calling, I have seen an upswing through my dealing with various clients and partners but these facilities seem to only be used in conjunction with a showboat boardroom. Ive sat in many interoffice meetings and typically the technology isn't even switched on, many people habitually revert back to conference call. It's a shame as I think there are various benefits but as has been said above, this technology will take a bit of time to settle into the habitual comfort zone.
In terms of mobile video (individual use) the answer is quite clear, the market needs to reach a higher maturity level in order to make this technology feasible. Were now at a point where your camera phone penetration is 70+ % in most markets, the lead time to transition to the same type of figures with video callers is substantial. Assume average upgrades are 2 years, then consider that we need a device with video calling capability saturation of 60-80%, where most markets only currently have 10-15%. Were still 3+ years from seeing this technology "take off".
Some of the Asian markets should be excluded from my comments above as they always seem to be early adopters .
Just my 2 cents.
More Answers (14)
Bill N
Experienced, productive, and affable IT professional
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (41), Government Policy (10), Professional Networking (8), Ethics (7), Education and Schools (4), Mentoring (4), Change Management (4), Event Marketing and Promotions (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (3), Professional Books and Resources (3), Career Management (3), Energy and Development (3), Blogging (3), Web Development (3), Business Insurance (2), Purchasing (2), Resume Writing (2), Business Development (2), Writing and Editing (2), Project Management (2), Professional Organizations (2), Customer Service (1), Air Travel (1), Car and Train Travel (1), Business Dining and Entertainment (1), Job Search (1), Conference Planning (1), Economics (1), Personnel Policies (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Employment and Labor Law (1), Advertising (1), Viral Marketing (1), Public Relations (1), Customer Relationship Management (1), Organizational Development (1), Currency Markets (1), Derivatives Markets (1), Equity Markets (1), Option Markets (1), Non-profit Fundraising (1), Social Enterpreneurship (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Wealth Management (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Business Plans (1), Starting Up (1), Green Business (1), Computer Networking (1), Information Storage (1), Wireless (1)
Robert Conlin gave a lot of good reasons. I think another is that now people have a tendency (or the option) to do additional things when on 'normal' phone, like IM, email, cook, etc., and they would be unable to do it.
I think the most central answer is convenience (or lack of it when using that visual component).
I can think of several reasons:
1. Costs involved
2. current equipment limitations
3. security
At present I don't think this to be aviable form of communication for the home user; however for business to business and corporate communication I believe it can add a lot to the bog-standard phone call or email. Cisco has developed some amazing equipment to deal with this type of thing.
Sam H
CEO at BiiCast, Inc.
Best Answers in: Starting Up (3), Corporate Governance (1), Business Plans (1)
There may be lots of people with the proper equipment, who may want to do it....(iphone vproc is a force to be reckoned with), but the people they know still dont have internet capability on their phones, and/or the data rates are still too high. In my opinion if the carriers would charge blocks rates for certain data amounts or just drop data rates altogether (I mean please...everyone knows that a Sprint wireless broadband card runs off the same network as their phones). I pay $60 a month for my Sprint card and have had as much as 2.9GB of information pass through it and not paid a dime more for the service. That is why people aren't using it and it is a slap in the face to people with half of a brain to think that we wouldnt figure that out.
Sam Hyatt
CEO/Founder
CabDaddyGPS
978.201.2356
shyatt@cabdaddy.com
Very simply, the costs outweigh the benefits.
I think the reasons are psychological rather than anything to do with the cost. People don’t want their privacy to be invaded. Nobody wants to talk on a loud speaker in public. Even when the costs were reduced in some markets, the Video traffic had little upward trend.
In my discussions with clients, most believe that video calls are still too complex to setup or fix a fussy connection. This positions them as not easy enough to setup compared to the limited value gained from using the technology.
Where I have seen success is with clients who opt to invest in a professional video conferencing room with dedicated, supported, and maintained equipment.
You can make video calls in a free way, you just have to know how to do it. If you have certain Instant Messaging programs (ie. Yahoo, MSN, or etc.) You can set up a web cam on two computers and then send a computer phone call with a microphone in the privacy of your home or if you have a laptop, from anywhere. I know this is not a literal video phone, but it is free and most people have web cams and microphones. The reason you don't hear of actual video phones is for all the reasons listed with cost and current equipment limits.
Greg W
Digital Media Consultant at VM Direct
Best Answers in: Public Relations (2), Guerrilla Marketing (1), Internet Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Social Enterpreneurship (1), Professional Networking (1), E-Commerce (1), Software Development (1)
Hi, Sachendra
I really dont think its fizzling out - I believe its on the upswing.
Granted, cost, convinience, and avaliability, is probably slowing progress.
But, Video everything is the wave of the future, weather we agree or not. This typing is going to be obsolete in the near future. Just like a lot of other things. Did you know there are more cell phones, than there are landlines. Also the e-mails have even gone so far as to wipe out certain zip-codes, because so many people are on computers.
A good example of how I think its on the upswing, for example the company I am involved in (a online social network, with both v-mail, and live video broadcasting capabilities, plus more) added a softphone to the deal. You can also use it from a portable device. Technology is advancing so much, you even have more people on computers than using television(my company has a Hello t.v. network going, showing all the live as well as taped broadcasts)
Look how youtube has everyone gaga. As far as I know the company I am affiliated with is The worlds only Video based interactive Social Network. So you can check it out for yourself I left some sites for you - the first showcases products well - the 2nd use and users, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - the 3rd is my helloworld site if you want to watch some Live Hello t.v.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
Greg
Links:
Video calling has not fizzled -- it simply hasn't reached the the "tipping point." I believe the video explosion is less than a year away and will occur as soon as a more people have the capability. Too many people are unwilling to be first. After all, if I am the only one in my circle, who would I call?
Price is no longer an issue. There is at least one video phone appliance on the market today that costs less than many cell phones (e.g. GLOBALINX @ $200).
Quality is not an issue either. The quality of mine is outstanding. I've seen CNN overseas transmissions that aren't even close to what my VoIP video phone can produce. I use it routinely for both business and pleasure.
My experience is that when people participate in their first video call, they want their own. Sure, they have questions about how easy it is to use, privacy, quality, price and benefits. But, that's part of the experience and learning curve.
Purchasing a personal video capability (as opposed to one for business purposes) will be an emotional decision. I've seen people tear up when they realize what video calling will mean to them. The "reasons" posted seem to miss this.
To understand what is about to happen, think about the transition from radio to television.
Links:
Randy S
Writer, Editor, Communications Specialist
Best Answers in: Freelancing and Contracting (1), Advertising (1), Internet Marketing (1), Writing and Editing (1), Small Business (1), Blogging (1)
First, I think the technology curve is now at the point where video calls will become more prominent. Already, SKYPE, AIM, and other places are featuring video. This is now more available due to built-in cameras in computers, more bandwidth, and the necessary technology to make video digitally smaller (such as through MP4, etc.)
As others have pointed out, video will probably remain an optional aspect of communications for quite awhile due to privacy issues. Who wants to answer a video phone after you first wake up. Most phone calls are for the exchange of information which needs no real visual reinforcement. It is an added luxury which would add little to the message transaction.
Where the visual is needed, the option could be provided. Now that many people are seeing VOIP as their phone-connection-of-choice, the built-in cameras and communications assets of a computer make it easier to utilize.
Best regards,
Randy
Barry B
Co-Founder at AdVenture Media
Best Answers in: Mobile Marketing (7), Advertising (2), Direct Marketing (1), Internet Marketing (1), Wireless (1)
Video conferencing falls far short of the actual face to face experience. Compared to our offline meeting, the video conference is an experiential disappointment. Apart from the lost subtleties of light, gesture and feeling, more emotion than we may realize is communicated by olfactory senses.
Besides, now that we finally all get to work in our jammies, do we really want to suit up for a 10:00 am phone call?
Links:
First off, I want to say that I am biased in responding to this question. As an employee of ooVoo, a multi-point video messenger, I feel very strongly about the future of video communication and of course our service. ooVoo delivers a high quality video conferencing service, that is easy to setup and fun to use. Personally, I have always felt that the primary reasons for the failure of video communication to really take hold have been the absence of a reliable and affordable service. Too many products under-delivered on the experience (difficult to setup, unreliable experience, poor quality, too-much video lag etc), that created a poor first impression of video communication as a service resulting in skepticism of this market. It is inevitable that someone will deliver a high quality, affordable product that will finally take hold.
I encourage you to try ooVoo – there is a free 30 day trial of all advanced features for new users and a standard service that allows 3-party video calls for free. Simply go to our site, www.ooVoo.com and download the software. If you need someone to chat with feel free to add me to your contact list. My ID is Rodgerpw. Once you’ve used ooVoo let me know your feedback or any suggestions you may have. We are always looking for ways to improve our service and if you are currently a skeptic – it would be good to hear from you either way.
Links:
In my opinion - price is a barrier or perhaps customers still perceive it as luxury service, also there are less video based application been introduced which could compliment acceptance among customers.
Further the user experience has been not really up the mark Initially, due lack of call completion from 3G to 2G, which now will take time to mend
Nobody likes the way they look
