Hmmm… I somewhat disagree with Joel Stein’s article in TIME, and I generally enjoy reading his columns (TIME remains one of the few pubs I just refuse to read online).
While I agree that we’re not always eager to look at each other when we talk on the phone, I have found that Skype has remarkable call quality and you easily have the option not to video call. You can just IM if you want. Or just talk as you are working. With Skype, you have distinct communication options that allow for much discretion. I use Skype to talk to clients and reporters, but mainly I love to use it when I talk to my friends and family in Europe. For FREE! Hello? And I can see them if I want to.
I don’t think you can beat that by washing dishes when you talk on a regular phone just to save some time. It depends how you use Skype, and how you understand its dynamic. The article also raises the big question: why are we so innovative with communication technology, if in the end all we do is avoid direct communication as much as possible?
Tags: joel stein, skype, skype and pr, TIME, video calls, videoconferencing
Ithink I will finally try and use Skype this year. Although I travel extensively for work, I have typically bought local SIM cards to use on my cell phone - Skype sounds like a great product though, so I will try it out.
I agree with Didi on Skype’s usefulness - it’s a precious instrument, when used in a proper way. I’ve been using IM and video calls for a couple of years now, and that has revealed to be a wonderful way to keep in touch with my family which is unfortunately located all over Europe. And differently from other social media, that subliminally invite poeple to create some sort of second identity to seem more interesting to the rest of the world, I think Skype is authentic, and allows its users to be themselves. Plus, my little daughter started recognizing cousins and grandparents when watching them on the screen, thus it could even have a pedagogical utility to it. I would suggest Skype to anyone! marta