Home sleep monitoring with Apple Watch and Google (Nest) Home Video in adult with limited ability to describe a nocturnal health issue

This post content was moved to:

https://notes.kateva.org/2023/05/home-sleep-monitoring-with-apple-watch.html

Apologies for the error!

Father longterm care iPad videoconferencing project: Securing the iPad

My father has been doing well in a Quebec long term care facility for veterans (in Canada that has historically meant WW II, he’s in his 90s). Things are getting tougher though — the facility is shifting from federal to provincial control. Great staff are leaving and programs will be stressed.

I see him every 3-4 months, but in between I was surprised how well Skype worked with him. He does much better speaking when he can see me than he does on the phone. It seems to be related to knowing when to try speaking and when to listen. He also seems to hear Skype sound better than mobile phone sound. (It’s likely much higher quality.)

Even with the old regime though the Skype conferences often failed. Tech complexity and organizational issues forced us to discontinue them.

So now I’m going to try bringing him an LTE iPad Air 2. I’ll get a Rogers SIM card when I visit in a few weeks and we’ll see if it works from his room. If all goes well it will cost him an extra $10-$15/month — and the iPad cost [1].

Dad’s lost a few wallets from his room. I think most longterm care facilities see this kind of problem. Visitors can have issues. So we need to secure his iPad. Other than photo display I think he’ll only be using it for conferencing. So it needs to be secure [2], continuously powered up, stored somewhere he can sit, and not take up much room. The secure device needs to leave speakers and camera clear.

After some thought I ordered the $33 CTA Digital Universal Anti-Theft Security Grip with POS Stand for Tablets - iPad Air 2, iPad mini 4, Galaxy Tab, Note 10.1, 7-10-inch Tablets (PAD-UATGS) (grip and stand). It seems solid enough, it will keep the iPad off his desk, and there are screw holes (but no screws included). It may screw into his (antique) desk, but, even though it’s not shown in the picture, the lock comes with a cable. So I might be able to secure it to his desk in a less damaging and harder to remove way.

Of course the iPad Air 2 is way too thin for this device. It flops around. There’s supposed to be an included adapter strip, but mine was missing. I don’t think it would have worked — this home made setup seems a lot better. I had some TrueValue gripping pads (549104, TV23148) lying around…

I put those inside the corner retainers:

and it works pretty well:

So the first step is complete. Next step will be to test some of the conferencing options for data use and usability with various iPad accessibility features enabled: Skype vs. FaceTime vs. Facebook Messenger (Hangout is not very useable.)

I don’t expect Dad will use it by himself, we’re hoping a friend who helps with him will get things set up. I want it to be useable for them though.

- fn -

[1] (Rant) Incidentally, the iPad Air reminds me what a mixed bag Apple is these days. Nice device in many ways, but when I brought my mother an iPad six years ago one of the features she loved most was it could be used as a high quality digital photo frame. It was easy to launch from the lock screen. She loved that.

So, of course, Apple pulled it from the lock screen around iOS 7 and then ditched the replacement with iOS 9. There’s exactly one half-decent alternative, an app called Picmatic. Not to be confused with spammy copycat apps of the same name in the kinda broken App Store.

I don’t know if Apple is merely senile, or if the app had to be reworked for iOS 9 and it got ditched in a last minute panic to get that half-baked release out the door. Either way, the good news is that now that Ive has retired there’s only Cook to launch.

[2] Would it have killed Apple to incorporate some sort of secure lock feature in the iPad? Ok, yes, it would have.

Facetime connections to elderly parents - a Logitech webcam problem

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was testing a Facetime videolink to my mother. It's not my first attempt. I'd tried Google Video Chat two years ago, but after months of struggle I gave up; it had, and still has, dismal usability. iChat was even worse. In all cases I've been using the excellent Logitech QuickCAm Vision Pro for Mac. (Still the best webcam ever sold, though I fear it's going away without a true replacement.)

After a few weeks of testing I can report that Facetime is a big usability improvement over Google Video Chat. I configured my mother's machine to auto-answer my calls; I can call from my phone or desktop and her machine will pick up. Facetime doesn't need to be running, OS X 10.6.x will launch it.

There's only one problem.

After I close the call at my end Facetime continues to run on her machine. It doesn't auto-exit (and, at this time, she can't see well enough to reliably quit the app) [1]. This means her webcam stays powered on [3]. Under some conditions, perhaps mostly time, the embedded OS that manages in-camera focus and exposure control crashes. The Webcam still works, but it focuses to infinity and the light levels are very low. If you pull the USB cable, wait a few seconds, then plug it in again, the camera will reset.

I'm considering a few workarounds. Firstly, it would be great if Apple officially supported auto-answer, so FT could then auto-exit on close. Alternatively I could

• Run a cron job to restart her machine once a night - thereby quitting FT and turning off her camera (see update - there's an easier fix - just set this in "Energy Saver"
• Run AppleScript to quit Facetime.app nightly. Unfortunately FT is not scriptable [2], but this article suggests options: How To Create a Security Cam with FaceTime for Mac and AppleScript | Mac|Life
• Resign myself to getting remote control of her computer working again (Windows has a big advantage here, RDP is light years ahead of Apple's VNC technology).

I'm leaning to the nightly restart as the simplest fix, but I should also try remote control -- again!

[1] As her macular degeneration has progressed we've been focusing on her iPad use.
[2] Apple needs to kill AppleScript, but I fear there'd be not replacement. 
[3] The webcam then stays in active mode, so it appears like it's always sharing an image.

See also:

• Gordon's Tech: FaceTime: AutoAnswer, URL, desktop 1 click call

Update:

When a Google search doesn't return much, it's often because the function one is seeking is now a part of the OS.

OS X Energy Saver allows one to schedule a restart. I'll schedule my mothers machine to reboot at 2am daily, that should clear out any dangling FT sessions.

Incidentally, there's a longstanding, perhaps ancient, UI flaw with OS X Energy Save scheduling. Look at this:

It looks like the first option is available for selection, but the second (schedule restart) is unselectable -- it's "grayed out".

Look carefully (it took me a while). The select box (drop down) on the first row is also grayed out. This is standard behavior. The reason the 2nd row is so confusing is that it starts with a drop down -- there's no preceding text to display in normal font. Despite appearances this row is available for selection. Just click the check box.

I deleted a prefs file and did a number of Google searches before I realized what was going on. I found others who made the same mistake ...

FaceTime: AutoAnswer, URL, desktop 1 click call

FaceTime for Mac ($1) has an undocumented AutoAnswer feature ...

10.6: Enable AutoAnswer in FaceTime for the Mac - Mac OS X Hints

... defaults write com.apple.FaceTime AutoAcceptInvitesFrom -array-add +15205551212

... defaults write com.apple.FaceTime AutoAcceptInvitesFrom -array-add email@email.com ...

... defaults delete com.apple.FaceTime AutoAcceptInvitesFrom ...

The author used the "strings" command to uncover these options.

I've been looking for this for years [1] (die iChat die!), so, even though I generally avoid undocumented terminal entered preferences, I immediately set this up on my home iMac. I set it to AutoAnswer calls from my iPhone. Then I started up FaceTime and turned my screensaver on (screen is then locked) and placed a call.

With FaceTime on, a green light showed next to my iMac's "iSight".

The screensaver didn't change, but my desktop answered. My phone displayed the video input from the desktop and audio worked.

A few things to keep in mind as you test this ...

• Preferences are user specific. On a multi-user machine you have to enable it separately on each account.
• If FaceTime isn't running nothing happens.
• If the FaceTime window is showing the user gets a brief opportunity to cancel the call.
• If the FaceTime window is hidden it will answer, but there's no UI indication that a video chat is working.
• You can configure FaceTime to run on startup.

I'll be testing this out over the next few weeks, then I have to see if I can persuade my elderly parents that this is something worth enabling on their Mac. It would require an upgrade to 10.6, I think I'd left their machine on 10.5.

For an elderly user, or for anyone who wants a very simple way to create call you can create clickable desktop shortcuts or links in a web page ...

In Safari's address bar, type in one of the following URLs:

• facetime:// appleid
• facetime://email@address
• facetime://phone#

... select that URL in the address bar and drag it to the desktop.

When you do this you get a very dull file. Use IMG2ICNS (Free) to turn a photograph of the person you want to call into the file icon. I did this for my mother then put the icon with my picture on her desktop.

[1] Google could never come up with a decent control UI for Google Video Chat.

See also:

• Video Chat for elder parents over OS X: Google Video/Gmail, Google Notifier, Firefox and LogMeIn (4/2009 - a kludge that sort of worked)
• iChat - weirdest computer experience (2/2009 - iChat was really bad)
• User image propagation from OS X desktop to Gmail via iChat (2/2009)
• Apple's iChat (videoconferencing) problem (12/2008)
• Can't select Jabber or Google Talk for iChat? Here's one reason (5/2009)
• When a feature really is a feature: iChat AV's mirror mode (10/2007)
• The dead quality desktop webcam market (8/2007 - before the Logitech)
• Microsoft LifeCam VX-7000 vs. Logitech 9000 and VisionPro -- it's in the focus (12/2008)
• Logitech QuickCam Vision Pro webcam for OS X and XP: I love it (2/2009 - first really excellent and successful quality webcam. Still the best.)
• How: Automated XGA resolution JPG USB image capture at rate 1 FPS (webcam?) - rec.photo.digital | Google Groups (a 2003 usenet post of mine - for historical reasons)
• Streaming video over the net - Quicktime, Ustream.tv and Watershed (3/2009 - wow, I've tried everything)
• DIY video baby monitor and video broadcast review (7/2009)

PS. When reviewing some of these old links, I was struck by how many years we've been trying to get useable 1:1 videoconferencing on the net. We're talking at least 13 years of repeated failure, with only modest recent success with Skype and Google Video Chat. Apple has failed repeatedly. I wonder if this time they'll push it through, but I've thought we were close before.

FaceTime for Mac - just about perfect

The artistic sociopath alternates cruel sadism with lovely gifts.

That's Apple.

The gift this time is FaceTime for Mac. It's just about perfect. Best of all, unlike the long dead iChat app it replaces, it's not tied to an OS release - it works for 10.6 and beyond. I dare to hope Apple is decoupling app functionality from OS release, but that's because I've got Stockholm Syndrome.

Seriously, OS coupling made iChat worthless. If Apple doesn't want to repeat that mistake, they have to maintain FaceTime outside of OS cycles.

On the other hand, there's not that much to maintain. It's pretty good as is. I'd like to see bigger buttons, but it's the kind of simple UI an elderly person with good vision can work with. (Apple is paying attention to demographics.)

During initial setup you can use your MobileMe account [1] or start a new apple account. You then associate it with ANY email address you own. After initial setup you can assign multiple addresses; they're simply unique identifiers that Apple assigns to your Facetime account identifier. You can choose one of these to be your callback email.

I love that "that you can also start a call from Mac OS X via URLs like facetime://appleid or facetime://email@address or facetime://phone#".

I tried this by embedding this protocol into a Google sites page. !It worked!

This means I can create a web page for my mother with a large clickable link target. That's far more useable for her than Google Video Chat or OS X iChat.

That's cool.

[1] Please do not make my MobileMe renewal mistake!

Skype - video conferencing

I'm still looking for a reasonably reliable video conferencing solution that my mother can use.

It has to run on OS X, the UI should work well for a low vision user, and it must "auto-answer" when I call.

I've tried iChat. Enough said. Apple would make me happy if they pulled iChat from the OS and sold it separately. Maybe they'd be motivated to make it work, and they'd encourage competition.

I really like the quality of Google Video Chat when it works. Alas, it fails far too often, the interface is a case study in UI sadism and the plugin didn't work on my 10.6 64 bit machine.

That leaves Skype, with video auto-answer. The quality isn't as good as GV, and it does crash, but I think it's more reliable than GV. More importantly, auto-answer is build it. The install was very easy.

I'll report more as I get additional experience.

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Video Chat for elder parents over OS X: Google Video/Gmail, Google Notifier, Firefox and LogMeIn

This is a bit complex to describe fully, but I hope these hints will be of use.

Briefly, I wanted to be able to establish a video chat connection to my elderly parents. Since we both use OS X and both have at least one Intel machine I considered iChat and Google Video Chat. I didn’t consider Skype or Yahoo because that would introduce new account issues and because, as best I can tell, Google has the best technology and no worse reliability than Skype or Yahoo.

I was unimpressed with iChat; it needs to be shot (see also). That left Google Video Chat, but it has a hellacious user interface. In fact, it has the lowest usability of just about any app I routinely use. Not well suited for my 80% blind and very arthritic mother. (I’m sure that will change when Google integrates GVC with Google Voice, but really Google needs all those usability people who’ve recently quite in disgust.)

At the same time I was exploring remote maintenance options and finally settled on LogMeIn Free.

This is the combination of technologies I’ve now cobbled together:

• Gmail/Google Video Chat: My mother’s email is managed via a Google account, even though she reads it using OS X Mail (IMAP). So she had an account.
• Google Notifier: In theory this keeps my mother logged in to Gmail so she doesn’t have to know her username and password. In practice I’m not sure this works; these day’s I might try FF with local caching instead.
• Logitech QuickCam Pro
• Firefox: For better or worse this is what my mother is accustomed to
• LogMeIn Free.
• I created a deskbar shortcut with is simple a Gmail desktop shortcut with the iChat icon pasted into it. So it looks like a Chat app.

Here’s how it works

1. I initiate the call from my Macbook using Firefox
2. I use LogMeIn to take control of my mother’s machine using Safari. Then I “answer” my own call (not hard).
3. I resize the window for my mother then drop the remote control connection.

Google Gmail voice and video chat - soon interoperable with other video chat?

GVC 1.0.8 is out. This is very interesting (emphases mine) ...

juberjabber: Gmail voice and video v1.0.8

... Added support for the H.264/AVC video codec, in addition to the H.264/SVC codec that we typically use. This allows us to be compatible with video software that does not yet support SVC. When using H.264/AVC, Gmail video chat will send and expect in-band parameter sets, and send using a single-NAL RTP packetization....

I'm not aware of any form of publicly available video chat that interoperates. The Apple article on QuickTime H.264 is illuminating ...

... Ratified as part of the MPEG-4 standard (MPEG-4 Part 10), this ultra-efficient technology gives you excellent results across a broad range of bandwidths, from 3G for mobile devices to iChat AV for video conferencing to HD for broadcast and DVD

So will Google Video Chat interoperate with OS X iChat? And what about that new iPhone ...

Update: A paste typo messed up the previous edition

Google's Gmail Video Chat instability - Google is listening, please post

When I recently posted to the Gmail Help group about the extreme instability of Google Video Chat over the past week (connection half-life is now < 10 minutes) I didn't expect any response.

I got one: Video Chat problems - Chats and Contacts.

... We've had a few anecdotal reports of more-frequent disconnects in the
past few days. We're looking into on our side.

When you get the "Click here to upload" prompt, are you uploading your
log? We can investigate your issue specifically if so.

If necessary, you can send more details to my Gmail address...

So it turns out Google engineers are monitoring those discussion groups. That's encouraging.

I think the way to get their attention is to

1. Look for anyone else posting on the topic.
2. Click the five star ranking on what they posted.
3. Add a new message with as much detail as possible and rename the subject to make it as clear as possible.

The key is to find a related post and star it. Unfortunately there's no dedicated forum for the Video Chat help and there are a lot of low content questions and posts. Given the instability we've seen with GVC current users are either very tolerant or rather dispirited.

So if you're a GVC user and experiencing connection or stability issues, please be sure to post in the currently applicable help forum: http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Help-Chats-and-Contacts-en/topics?hl=en.

Use a clear description and include the string "Video Chat" in the subject line. I'll be monitoring for posts with that heading in my feed reader and I'll star any that I find relevant. (This is the feed for the Google Alert I created to track new posts: -- couldn't get that one to work!)

Update 3/14/09: Things are better today. Google is working hard ...

Streaming video over the net - Quicktime, Ustream.tv and Watershed

We've been making extensive use of Google Video Chat for corporate communications (and with my aged mother, but that's a future post), but it's strictly point-to-point.

We need to share a video stream (audio not needed) from site meetings to remote users. This is remarkably hard to do.

You might not think this is a challenge. You might recall a 1990s fad of using a desktop webcam to share daily tedium -- or webcams that broadcast traffic. Or you might think of a large industry that specializes in "recreational" webcam use (an industry that just about killed the quality desktop webcam).

Alas, it would be most unwise, not to mention unsavory, to use those recreational services for corporate video broadcast. Besides, we actually want image clarity.

I haven't been able to find many options other than the high end professional services.

The one thing I've come across is the combination of Apple's recently resurrected QuickTime Broadcaster for OS X (compresses video input) and Apple's somewhat quiescent QuickTime streaming server.

Apple's free QuickTime Broadcaster for OS X (FAQ) will support firewire video capture, such as from a Canon Camcorder as well as iSight input. It can only output to a single destination however, such as a (Windows/Mac) QuickTime Player or (more importantly) OS X Streaming Server. (Yes, the name is misleading. Also the documentation is obsolete, iSight no longer exists but it now works with any 10.5 video source).

In theory it works with both Intel and PPC machines, but my G5 iMac couldn't compress the high quality video output of my Logitech Vision Pro webcam fast enough.

To do real broadcasting you're supposed to stream the output to a QuickTime streaming server (part of OS X Server, $400) or a multicast network. (This discussion is useful).

It turns out that DreamHost, a well regarded web hosting service, provides the open source version of QuickTime streaming server -- the Darwin QuickTime Streaming Server. Live streaming (broadcast a meeting) is not officially supported, but it works. The configuration looks like this ...

• Local OS X laptop provides live feed (OS X Broadcaster) to Darwin Streaming Server
• Darwin Streaming Server provides on demand stream
• Users access stream from a specially configured web page that embeds QuickTime call.

I've played with this configuration briefly, but there's very little material on the web about it. That makes me wonder if there's any way to make it really work (Apple is very quiet, for example). However I found IAMedia really had used DreamHost's streaming video. They've prepared a nice tutorial of how to make it all work, including how to embed the stream in a webpage.

Problem is, they've run into quality of service issues with DreamHost. So they've recently switched to ustream.tv -- a ad-funded startup specializing in personal broadcasting.

Alas, ustream.tv isn't very corporate, though it's not as off-base as the "recreational" services of old.

Happily, ustream.tv sells a private label service called "Watershed".

... Watershed is Ustream's self-serve platform for live, interactive video. Flexible for everyone, Watershed offers plug-and-play as well as robust API integration solutions. Organizations both small and large can customize Watershed to meet their specific needs and build global communities around shared live experiences....

Watershed charges $1 an hour/user for pay-as-you-go pricing.

That's about right for my corporation ...

Update: Watershed isn't super trivial to setup, but by the standards of video streaming it's very simple. I created the two web pages (broadcast and viewer) on one of my servers and stuck the embedded code in. Worked pretty well. Cost for our use would be about $50 to $100 monthly, so it looks like something I can justify.

So I was wondering, where the heck was Watershed all the time I've been looking for an affordable corporate video broadcast solution?! Turns out they launched 2 weeks ago. They're probably not even advertising yet.

Update 3/6/09: A few cautionary notes on Watershed

• I don't see an automated way to discontinue an account. I do like to see that.
• They don't provide any information on which credit card you're billing billed against
• The "Support" link doesn't have any link to contact support (there is a separate contact link)
• When I tried it this morning it was broken.

Update 3/24/09: After my initial testing I was never able to get it to work. Tech support was responsive, but it didn't clear up the trouble I was having. I decided to step back and wait until there are more players in this market. Then I discovered there was no way to remove my account information...

iChat - weirdest computer experience

This was one of my weirder computing experiences.

I was testing iChat AV, connecting my G5 iMac to my MacBook through our wireless LAN. I was surprised to learn I could use our Gmail accounts for identity establishment.

The connection worked. I showed up on both sides of the video conversation, seen from different angles. There was something odd going on however.

The person I was seeing seemed less and less like me. The image was ... drifting ... in time ... backwards.

Soon I was looking at myself on one screen several minutes in the past.

Eerie. I felt as though I was seeing myself in another space-time continuum.

I have a feeling that the G5 isn't going to cut it. I think iChat might have worked with the G5 under 10.4, so I'm a bit suspicious about Apple (again)

I'll try with the AIM account to see if there's a difference, but I think the accounts are only used to locate IP addresses and ports so I don't expect anything to change.

Update: I tried the Bonjour chat discovery approach; it works on a LAN. There was no change -- the G5 pegged the CPU and gradually fell behind. I then set a bandwidth limit on both clients. At 200 kbps the G5 was able to keep up but the image was obviously inferior. At 500 kbps the image was pretty good, but the G5 gradually fell behind, after about four minutes the lag was pretty severe.

I also tried the Chax Input Manager to modify iChat preferences. I wanted to see if I could use it to make it easy for me to access and control my mother's Mac Mini. Unfortunately when I tested with Bonjour Chax prevented a connection. When I removed it the connection worked. Input Managers are often problematic, so I removed Chax.

So the good news is that there's no need for an AIM account any more -- a Google account works well. The bad news is that the G5 is pretty limited and that Apple's iChat doesn't degrade gracefully. Google's Video Chat does a far better job of adjusting to machine and network capabilities, but it's even less elder friendly than Apple iChat.

Update 2: On the same LAN I connected the MacBook to a 5 yo XP box -- an older machine than the G5 iMac with Google Video Chat. Both machines used the superb Logitech Quickcam Vision Pro webcams. (GVC won't run on the iMac, but in theory the iMac G5 and the old dual core CPU in the XP box should be comparable). GVC absolutely spanked iChat -- it was a far better experience. Unfortunately while iChat is not particularly elder friendly, Google Video Chat is absolutely elder hostile!

PS. Apple's Discussion Forum for iChat is for the 10.4 version of iChat AV. Abandonware?

Update 5/30/09: Just to add the general iChat debacle - if you enable any sort of "parental control" for an OS X account, even if you just lock the Dock, then iChat Jabber and Google Talk account options are mysteriously grayed out. No documentation, no explanation. What a steaming pile.

Update 7/13/09: How to configure auto-answer for iChat.

Logitech QuickCam Vision Pro webcam for OS X and XP: I love it

I wrote a few weeks ago about choosing a webcam for some work projects. I ended up ordering a number of Logitech QuickCam Pro cameras; several model 9000 and several Vision Pros. The latter are marketed for OS X, but they also shine on XP.

I've made extensive use of the Vision Pro webcams. Today I compared the image to the built-in webcam on my MacBook and I was so impressed by the superiority of the Vision Pro I wrote one an rare "rave" review for Amazon. It's my first five star review in years ...

Amazon.com: Logitech QuickCam Vision Pro for Mac (Black): Electronics

I've purchased seven of these cameras, 5 for a team at work, 1 use at home, and 1 for my mother's Mac Mini.

Most of the cameras are on XP machines. As mentioned elsewhere these cameras install without device drivers on XP SP2 or later. Unlike the superficially similar but less expensive QuickCam Pro 9000 they do light balance and focus through camera hardware. That means we don't have to deal with flaky device drivers (rarely done well for OS X), and there's less demand on the CPU to manage the device....

... I've compared the video quality of this camera to the pinhole webcam that comes standard on modern Macs. It's light years better. There's really no comparison. It's better in low light, it's better at focus, it's higher resolution, there's far less image noise, etc.

The built-in microphone is superb. We get better sound quality using Google Video Chat and this device than we get with high end conference phones.

I'm a hard consumer to please, but I am very pleased with this camera.

Highly recommended.

Google Apps now includes Google Video Chat

I don't think this was always true, nor do I recall an announcement, but Google has added Gmail video chat capabilities to Google Apps accounts, including the top-secret free accounts.

Update: I was hoping all members of a domain would be "trusted" for Chat purposes, but that's not so. You still need to use Gmail's awkward UI to establish a "trust" relationship (invite to chat).

Also, this must be pretty new, because the Google App admin page still (incorrectly) says: "To use Chat, users must download Google Talk (Windows only)". Not so, Google Apps Gmail chat works fine in OS X.

Google Video Chat – at last, news from Google

We’ve been making extensive use of GVC for corporate collaboration.

It’s damned impressive, but there’s NO information from Google’s official channels on what’s going on with it.

There is, however, an authoritative source.

One of the lead developers has a personal blog …

juberjabber: Gmail voice and video v1.0.5

… Today we released the 1.0.5 update for the Gmail voice and video chat software. All current installations will begin an automatic update within the next 24 hours. If you do not want to wait, you can visit http://mail.google.com/videochat and re-run the installer…

They’ve done a lot of work on the Mac version. It was grossly unstable a month ago, but I’m going to be retesting.

Google Video Chat – suddenly unstable

Ahh, the perils of life on the cutting edge. I gave Google Video Chat a grade of B- a week or so ago, but now it’s as unstable on XP as it’s always been on OS X. Sessions dropping at 10-20 minutes, problems starting up, etc.

I am very fond of my Logitech Vision Pro webcam though. It’s marketed for OS X, but it’s the best thing going on XP. There are no thrice-damned drivers to load, so it’s easier on the CPU and I don’t have to live with the horrible quality of modern device drivers (which are routinely outsourced to the lowest bidder).

Nothing to do to wait for a fix from Google. There are SO many things that can go wrong with these solutions …

Google Video Chat - a status report - Grade B-

I've been updating my initial post on Google Video Chat, but I think I've enough experience now to offer a status report. I've been testing XP to XP, and XP to OS X connections using Firefox.

1. It takes a lot of CPU capacity. Practically speaking I think you want a dual core machine. It takes a lot of CPU capacity on OS X machines. On XP, compared to other video solutions, it's relatively efficient. It's Intel only of course, so G5 need not apply.
2. The XP connections are pretty stable. If there's a nasty firewall involved, especially a nasty firewall with lousy bandwidth (some hotels for example) things get choppy and sound lags. If the connections are decent the results are quite good.
3. OS X to XP connections are unstable. They work within a LAN, and they may work point-to-point with reasonably good connections, but when you add firewalls and VPN into the mix it falls apart.
4. Google's Chat Help Forum is pretty worthless and so is their FAQ. I can't find any significant documentation.
5. The workflow for establishing a "trust relationship" so that chat is possible is awkward and cryptic.
6. The Chat contacts list UI is a mess, don't bother with it. Things work best if you type the gmail address of the person you wish to contact. Searching for a name then reviewing the menu of options isn't too bad.
7. The Gmail integration is awkward.
8. Google's notification / availability status workflow is a mess.
9. Be sure to use the Settings menu of Gmail -> Chat Settings -> test connection.

I'd grade Google's Video Chat effort as C+. That sounds bad, but the rest of the class is B- to F, and the B-kids are trending downwards and might drop out of school.

I'll update the grades in a month or so.

Update 1/6/09: I bumped the grade in the post title to B-. We've been doing more corporate testing and have found:

1. The voice quality when used with our Logitech Vision Pro (OS X, but we use them on XP machines because they don't require drivers and don't burden the CPU to do light correction and focusing) webcams is superb.
2. Even on our creaky Dell laptops and feeble VPN network connections we can run both a point-to-point video conference and a LiveMeeting 2003 screen sharing session at the same time. Video degrades gracefully and audio remains excellent. This is actually pretty amazing, if you try to use LiveMeeting's native low quality video alongside LiveMeeting screensharing the video simply dies.

All the other problems persist, but the fundamental technology on XP is truly amazing.

Now if they can fix their OS X problems and come up with a $#!Now if they can fix their OS X problems and come up with a $#!$&^ notification solution ...
amp;^ notification solution ...

Update 2/24/09: Grade A-: The OS X client now seems comparable to the Windows client. Both drop sessions every hour or so. The quality can be astounding. Usability is astoundingly bad however. Still, beats Skype and iChat easily.

Update 10/29/09: We had too many connection drops for this to be really feasible for use at work. We're retrying with 'nice to have' non-critical video only connections. We assume this is more issues with our network than with GVC. I have discovered a way to separate the chat from the image; if you have Google Talk installed (XP only) you have an extra chat window, so that can be managed separately from the video-associated chat box.

The state of webcam-based low cost business videoconferencing

ver in Gordon's Notes, where I keep my ravings, I've opined on the root causes of the very slow development of useful and reliable low costs business videoconferencing.

Not for the first time, a solution seems to be almost in reach. It's been a longtime coming.

We've almost got reliable 640x480 (or more) 15fps point-to-point video with reasonably sharp edges and decent management of suboptimal lighting. That's enough to support facial expression tracking, and to enable sharing physical white boards.

Here's my summary of the state of the technology based mostly on my personal experience:

1. There are now reasonable quality USB 2 webcams, but focusing beyond 10 feet can be a real problem. Autofocus, even when it exists, is slow and unreliable.
2. Current webcams have very limited dynamic range. They seem to be tuned to keep from blowing out the high (right) end of histogram, so contrast extremes produce a lot of dark areas. Glare from reflected lights are a real problem. We need next generation sensors to improve the dynamic range.
   
3. Our CMOS (vs CCD) webcams have surprisingly good light sensitivity, even with small lenses and tiny sensors. I often find better results with relatively dim but indirect lighting.
4. I'd like to see some levels on the webcams to help with orientation. Oh, and a $%!$! tripod screw too. Velcro tape and black tape are most helpful, yeah, just like in the movies.
5. Relatively modern laptops seem to have just enough horsepower to do at least 640x480 at 15fps with the newest variants of adaptive h.264 compression. That seems to be the current practical limit.
6. Our networks are a problem. Attacks on BitTorrent seem to be taking out iChat, and possibly other video conferencing software. Comcast gets a lot of criticism; but it may be regional and it's not clear that DSL is always better. Comcast @Work may be better, but I have no real evidence yet. [see update]
   
7. Gmail based Google Video Chat (Vidyo technology) has given us the image quality we need on both XP and OS X. It hasn't, however, been very robust. [1] GVC is point-to-point, no multicasts. It also has voice quality that's sometimes excellent, but we prefer to use standard phone conferencing.
   
8. Stack Overflow likes Oovoo and Adobe Connect. Both have some multi-user support, but in our tests OOvoo had a lot of dropouts. On the other hand, we've had GVC issues as well.
   

I'll update this post as I learn more.

[1] Incidentally, Google's help forums are a waste of time. I think the XP to OS X connections have problems when a corporate VPN or firewall is involved, the XP to XP connctions seem more resilient.

Microsoft LifeCam VX-7000 vs. Logitech 9000 and VisionPro -- it's in the focus

I bought my LifeCam VX-6000 two years ago. For most of that time it sat on my shelf.

Now, thanks to Google Video Chat, and several Microsoft updates of the incredibly botched device drivers, it's finally useful [1].

It's a pretty plain webcam, but it does 800x600 video and that's more than our infrastructure seems able to handle these days. Even 640x480 over Google Video is enough to make a small but close whiteboard readable.

The killer feature of the VX6000 is the manual focus ring. It's chintzy, but it makes all the difference.

Which is why Microsoft's current top-of-the-line webcam seems ... stupid:

LifeCam VX-7000 (Windows only)

...The webcam is always in focus – no fine tuning needed. Focus depth of field is from 21” to 60”...

Right. Always in focus. Uh-huh. They still sell the VX-6000 by the way, but they don't mention the focus ring. Gotta love marketing.

By contrast the competition does autofocus -- sort of ...

Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 (windows only, 960x720 video, aka 720p [2])

Premium autofocus: Your images stay razor-sharp, even in close-ups.

Except from (excellent) Amazon reviews we learn that the VisionPro's autofocus is controlled by the computer, not the camera. So it's sluggish and slow. It also sounds like some VisionPro's can focus further than others, and anything beyond 8 feet is pretty iffy.

There's no manual focus ring on either the Logitech or the LifeCam. Grrr.

Lastly, we have the one and only webcam sold for OS X:

Logitech VisionPro (OS X theoretically, but see this.)

...Premium autofocus: Your images stay razor-sharp, even the most extreme close-ups...

There's about zero information on Logitech's site, much more in their press release

To deliver image-perfect detail and clarity, the Logitech QuickCam Vision Pro webcam for Mac combines Logitech’s premium autofocus technology with Carl Zeiss optics. The new Logitech webcam uses a voice coil motor for its autofocus system, instead of a stepper motor. Focusing is fast and fluid – crisp even in extreme close-ups only 10 cm from the camera lens. Logitech’s autofocus system compensates for changes in image-edge sharpness and refocuses images in less than three seconds.

and on Amazon we get very mixed reviews of the autofocus, from this to this. I wouldn't expect to get much out of this camera on a non-Intel system, so it's really an accessory for the Mac Mini (other Intel systems have built-in not-to-bad webcams). One review that impressed me claims that this camera does its own autofocus, not relying on the computer and gives us the low down on resolution ... [see update]

Autofocus and autoexposure (light level) are done purely in hardware. There's no software to install. This is different from the earlier Logitech QuickCam 9000, which depended on Windows software to do the focus and exposure, which lowered the price of the webcam, but forced you to use Windows. The microphone is pretty good for a webcam, but you'll still want a headset for clear conversation. Frame rate is very fast and smooth, 30fps at 640x480.

... The included stand is very wobbly, and falls down easily. When set on top of the monitor, gravity's the only thing holding it on, it will slide off easily. Unlike the older Logitech webcams with flexible plastic that could mold into place, this camera has stiff plastic, so it doesn't maintain as good a grip. No zoom. Frame rate gets much slower if resolution is increased beyond 640x480. At 960x720, it's 15fps. At the maximum 1600x1200, it's only 5ps. Anything above 960x720 is just hardware upscaling, as the true optical resolution of the webcam is 960x720.

Now that's a review!

The ability to work without drivers on XP is very interesting.

For my purposes I may stick with the LifeCam, but buy one or the other of the Logitechs for our other team members.

[1] The process of establishing a trusted chat relationship is nuts. See update to my Google Video Chat post for what I think works.

[2] Be careful. You may find your chat software won't allow anything beyond 640x480, so this number may be pointless. iChat peaks at 640x480, and practically speaking, that's the limit for everything today. I think to do better we'll need dedicated hardware based h.264 compression on the camera.

Update 12/19/08: (posted as comment on Mr. Krellan's initial review)

I had to order several XP webcams as part of a corporate order, and based on this review I ordered one VisionPro and several Pro 9000 cameras.

... On my XP SP2 laptop the camera took a few seconds to register. In Windows Explorer it then showed up, next to my drives, as a "USB Video Device". (In properties it's "manufactured by microsoft".) Clicking on the "USB Video Device" in Explorer opens a video window. In this display is no "mirroring" or zoom since we're just seeing unmodified output.

The camera focused clearly at 6" (rather better than claimed) and at about 30 feet.

Adjustment to light levels is automatic and impressive.

The dynamic range (ability to deal with glare, bright and dark areas) is vastly better than my 1-2 year old Microsoft VX-6000.

It's a solid device. Mr. Krellan is correct that it doesn't mount very securely but I think will suffice.

Impressive.

.NET Framework corruption may cause Microsoft LifeCam installer hang. Java-vu?

It all started innocently enough, with corporate testing of Google Video chat.

In one test using a camera only on my machine my test subject couldn’t read my whiteboard. She was seeing a mirror image display.

It’s not supposed to work that way. I’m supposed to see a mirror image of myself in a small part of the screen, my correspondent is supposed to see a standard non-mirror image [1].

So I tried to fix things. That’s how I got Java-vu all over again, with flashbacks to the dark days of .comBubble 1.0 – when we were wrecked on the reefs of JVM version control.

First I uninstalled all other video conferencing clients, starting with Oovoo. Nice product in many ways, but it kept dropping my conferences. Can’t have that.

Then I tried adjusting the settings on my Microsoft LifeCam VX 6000. (Nice hardware for its day, horrid drivers.[2])

Oops, can’t find the software. Ok, I’ll just reinstall – time to see how much Microsoft has fixed.

So I download the LifeCam drivers and install. All is well until I get to the point where it’s say “Downloading and installing files..." . The progress indicators moves gradually to the end … and starts over again.

And again.

And again.

Time goes by. It seems to be hung. I kill the install and a search leads me to a Microsoft support site (emphasis mine) ..

Software Setup Malfunction in Start - Help and Support Feature Discussion

… My problem is similar. I'm trying to install the software but the install process won't proceed past, "Downloading and installing files..." The green bars at the bottom fill up, as if progressing, but it's been running for a couple of hours now. I thought maybe the problem was with the CD, so I tried  it with the downloaded version with the same result…

Hey PJB. After much frustration, and less than great support from Microsoft, my issue was tracked down to be caused by a bad file somewhere in my Microsoft .Net Framework software...I had versions 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 installed on my computer...along with a SP 1 for version 1.1.

I found this link helpful: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/en-us

Try and use method one to uninstall your .net framework software. Method one did not work for me, I kept getting issues with removing both 2.0 and 3.0.

I then used method 2 which entails following another link and downloading a .net framework cleanup tool. I ran the program to cleanup ALL .Net versions. Then I went back to Microsoft Downloads and downloaded .net framework 1.1, 2.0 and 3.5 (not 3.0 - for some reason 3.0 would not download and created issues).

Once these .Net Framework downloads were installed I downloaded and installed LifeCam 2.04 software and my kid was up and running in 10 minutes.

It took me over a week to get this issue resolved.

One more thing, when you are downloading and installing your .net framework files you need to make sure you download in the proper sequence. Also, for some reason I encountered printer issues the first time through this. The second time I just unplugged my printer until all downloads were installed and I did a computer restart and the printer issue went away.

Yes, Microsoft has problems. Sure reminds me of my JVM versioning nightmares.

The kb article strongly recommends uninstalling from Add/Remove Software – but that only worked for .NET 1.1. The OS wouldn’t uninstall 2.0 or 3.0 because they were in use. It did uninstall 3.5.

So I followed the scary “method 2” and stripped all my .NET stuff away and rebooted. Scary, because .NET is XP’s 2nd brain now, so I was potentially breaking a lot of stuff.

I got lucky, no critical problems on restart. I decided to then use Windows Update to add back my .NET runtimes. It first offered me 1.1 and 2.0; I have no use for 1.1 so I just took 2.0. It then allowed me 2.0SP1. Each install took a fair amount of time.

I stopped there and tried running the LifeCam installer. I figured it would install 3.0SP1 if it needed it.

It seemed to hang again, but I figured it was installing .NET 3.0 and was using a very bad process indicator. I was willing to give it an hour, but it finished in about 30 minutes or so (I think our WAN connection is hurting).

I rebooted. Now Add/Remove showed me only .NET 2.0SP1 and .NET 3.0SP1. I didn’t bother with 3.5. Interestingly I used to also see .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0 as separate entries, but now I only saw the SP entries.

Now I could use Microsoft’s control panel for the LifeCam. There’s a “mirror mode” setting there, I turned it off. I also set the resolution to 800x600 for what that was worth.

I then retested in Google Video Chat. Success – my correspondent reported the mirror problem had resolved.

Phew.

Oh, and yes, I think there was something evil in my .NET 3.0/SP1 install.

[1] People are very distracted by non-mirror views of themselves. We aren’t used to looking at ourselves that way. So most video conferencing clients mirror our own image. Problem, is that inverts text. The smarter video clients let users turn off self-mirror mode, but Google doesn’t allow that (not sure about iChat). The remote person never wants to see me or my whiteboard in mirror mode.

[2] Google is reselling a nice Logitech webcam for $70.

Google notification confusion: Talk, Gmail or Deskbar Gadget?

We all know Google's flagship web apps: Google Mail (Gmail) and Google Contacts, Google Reader, Blogger, YouTube, Photos, Google Apps and Google Maps. Some would include Google Groups.

Lately they've been putting more energy into iGoogle (their portal) and Google Social. I think Google Calendar is sensational. At the other extreme, Google Desktop Search is clearly toast and Sites is struggling.

That's not so bad, but the problem is figuring out what to do on the periphery.

I've given up on Google Notebook, but what about Google Talk now that Gmail hosts Google Video Conferencing? In particular, what's Google's strategy for notification of events on the desktop?

I found this post outlining 3 options for chat/communication related events: Has the Google Talk desktop client been abandoned?

It's a good review.

My take is that Google Talk is done and Gmail notifier is very stale (last update 3/2006). So there's a hole. Google needs to give us a general notification solution that plugs into an API-equipped back-end web service with user rule control.

In the meantime I'm going to see what I can do with the Google Deskbar (no GDS though) and gadget based notification.

More later.

Update 11/14/08: I didn't like Google Desktop (Deskbar). I'd chosen not to install Google Desktop Search, but it still stuck a plug-in into Outlook. Outlook is unstable enough to begin with, I don't like using add-ons or plug-ins with it. Shortly after I noticed this, Google Desktop crashed. Uninstall immediately.

I might try Gmail Notifier next.

Update 11/18/08: Google Notifier is #$! broken:

Gmail Known Issues - Help Center

... If you've enabled the 'Always use https' setting in Google Mail, you'll need to install a patch for the Notifier to work with this setting...

... If you decide you no longer want to use the https setting, you'll need to install the other file included in the download to reset the Notifier. Use the same method as above, except with 'notifier_https_undo.reg.'

This is ridiculous, I ain't installing a registy hack that requires another registry hack to reverse.

I still think Google Talk is finished, so I'm not going to install that notifier.

I'll either install 3rd party notifier (there are plenty of 'em) or wait (for eons?) until Google comes up with a notification solution.

Update 2/14/09: We're making heavy use of Google Video Chat these days, it's weird there's still no clear notifier solution.