The solution is a little creepy I'll admit. But the fact that we are becoming increasingly accustomed to talking to people who appear to be staring at our necks is even creepier, in my opinion.
There have been a few comments now that mention people looking at necks instead of eyes as being creepy.
Now I wonder if anyone finds it creepy to talk to me in person, because I usually look at the speaker's mouth, not their eyes, at least when they are speaking. (I'm not actually sure where I look when I'm doing the speaking).
Looking at the mouth allows better error correction if the conversation is competing with noise.
People do notice direct eye contact though. Maybe someone could explain this. I'm kinda curious why directly in the eye we notice but there's more wiggle room around the face.
I propose they put that hole not in a corner, but in the middle of the screen, and position the remote person's face so that the pupil of one of their eyes is positioned exactly over the camera. That should give you the most natural interaction without distorting anything.
More seriously, I'm wondering if at some point the front-facing camera may be an intrinsic part of the screen. I've read that on-screen fingerprint sensors already use a kind of camera in the screen. If that were to become good enough to see images at a distance, that might actually work.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/get-ready-for-under-...
That coupled with a lack of even controlled lighting, best case sample images probably tells a lot about the image quality.
I personally think it's too far, we should stick to bezels so we can have great hardware for cameras, speakers and screens.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/6/5/18654365/xi...
Like the girl who was doing a video facetime call on her cell phone all the way from waiting at the gate , boarding, sitting on plane. Call me an old grumper if you want, downvote if you want. but damn , da fugg is the deal get off my lawn with your video chats kids.