"It wouldn't surprise me if very similar arguments were used against the telephone 100 years
ago!"
Oh please. They're not "arguments against" video, rather qualifications on exactly how much we
should expect video to "displace" other things just because it can. And subsequently how much
we need to worry about it as the only way things will be done in the future.
Here we are 100 years later still reading books, writing papers and "talking" by exchanging
text fragments. Why? It's a *good technology* that's much more appropriate than a string of
recorded telephone conversations.