I saw the Motorola Ojo during CES and compared to the Packet8 Videophone it was an advancement in home and office video phone technology. The call quality was far better than P8 and it had a sharp design, and the marketing muscle of Motorola.
That said, I kept going back to the primary line of thinking that I had about video phone calls. The idea has been around since 1964's World's Fair and if the demand was there the sales would be there.
That's when I realized the missing link with all these companies was the lack of softphone type endpoints, like Eyebeam from XTEN or even Sightspeed. You see, when mommy or daddy's away on a road trip and wants to see the kids who are at home there's no way to do it using these camera. Yet, with Sightspeed which is a soft phone like video application or EyeBeam, which combines phone and videophone features loaded on laptops (PC or MAC) you can easily have video reception wherever you may be, and with a small portable camera like those from Logitec or Creative Labs, or if you want the Ferrari of cameras, the Apple iSight, you end up with two way video for far less money than the Ojo and don't have to lug something as heavy or as bulky as the Packet8 VideoPhone, whose price just got slashed to $99.00 for purchase.
Why the videophone service sellers or proposed sellers like cable operators don't bundle in EyeBeam, which I now use a lot for voice calls as well, is simply beyond me. For the cable companies thinking of selling VoIP and the Ojo, if it uses open standards, it would be a true market differentiator that the RBOC's landline service could never offer. If the Ojo isn't using open standards, then it's got less of a chance to survive, because between SIP and SKYPE the standards or proprietary protocols are pretty much already entrenched, and the MSO's and Cable Labs are less likely to want to go down another path just yet in my opinion.