Brief Summary:
Invention/Product: AT&T Picturephone Mod II
Company: AT&T / Bell Labs
Country: USA
Period: Commercial launch in 1970, development since the 1960s.
Essence: An early commercial personal videotelephony system that allowed users to see the person they were talking to on a small screen during a call.
A technological pioneer but a resounding commercial failure due to exorbitant costs (both for the service and calls), lack of network effect (few people had it), low video quality, and psychological discomfort for users. Less known than many other failures, but a very illustrative example of how technology can be ready before the market and social norms.
Creation History
The idea of videotelephony was developed in Bell Labs (the research division of AT&T) over decades. The first public demonstrations took place at the World's Fair in New York in 1964 (Picturephone Mod I), generating significant interest. By the late 1960s, AT&T had prepared a commercial version, Mod II, expecting a revolution in communications. The commercial launch took place in Pittsburgh in 1970, with plans to expand to other cities.
Operating Principle
The Picturephone Mod II was a desktop device with a small black-and-white screen (about 5 inches), a built-in camera, and a standard telephone handset (or control buttons). Separate, more broadband phone lines were required to transmit the video signal compared to regular voice calls. The system allowed real-time video calls, provided both parties had a Picturephone, and it also had a feature for displaying documents in front of the camera or switching to a "blank" screen.
Claimed Advantages
- Revolution in Communication: The ability to not only hear but also see the person you are talking to, adding visual contact and non-verbal cues.
- Business Applications: Document and chart displays, remote meetings (albeit in a "one-on-one" format).
- Futuristic Appeal: Owning a Picturephone was supposed to be a status symbol and a sign of being part of future technologies.
Why Did It Fail?
- Astronomical Price: The monthly subscription was about $160 (over $1000 today), plus per-minute charges for video calls (the first few minutes were included, but further time was costly). This was completely unaffordable for most users and even for many companies.
- "Chicken and Egg" Problem: The service was only useful if your contacts also had it. But due to the price, almost no one bought it, making it useless for the few who could afford it. The network effect never materialized.
- Low Video Quality: The black-and-white, low-resolution, low-frame-rate image was far from ideal and strained the eyes.
- Psychological Discomfort: Many people felt uncomfortable knowing they were constantly being watched by a camera during conversations. The idea was too intrusive.
- Bulky and Inconvenient: The device took up a lot of space and required special installation.
AT&T quietly shut down the project a few years after the launch due to the complete lack of demand. The forecasted hundreds of thousands of subscribers turned out to be just a few hundred.
Ahead of Its Time?
Absolutely. The very idea of personal videocommunication was entirely correct but ahead of its time by 30-40 years. The communication network technologies (broadband access), digital video processing, and production of affordable cameras and displays were not yet ready for the mass market. Not to mention the social unpreparedness.
Can It Be Revived?
The concept of videotelephony has not only been revived but has become an integral part of our lives. Zoom, Skype, FaceTime, video calls in messengers—all these are direct embodiments of the Picturephone idea, realized on a completely different technological level (digital networks, internet, powerful personal devices) and at much lower (often zero) cost to the user. The lesson of Picturephone was learned: technology must not only be possible but also accessible, convenient, and in demand.
WTF Factor
The main WTF is the pricing. Offering to pay the equivalent of over $1000 a month plus per-minute charges for the ability to see a black-and-white, blurry image of the interlocutor on a tiny screen? This is a level of detachment from reality worthy of a museum! It seems AT&T was so confident in the technology's revolutionary nature that they forgot to ask if anyone was willing to pay for it.
Plus the situation itself: you pay huge money for a videophone, but there's no one to call because others don't have it due to the price. A vicious circle of failure.