posted 30 May 2002 06:52 AM            

Productivity and cost cutting on expenses such as travels are universal corporate issues basically for all exisiting organizations around the world, however, not all of companies have adoped videoconferencing solutions so far, just 500,000 installed around the world according to recent Polycom presentations at Geneva and Tokyo(BusinessShow2002). And many of the users are big companies such as Fortune 100 or Global 1000 and governments etc...
I think even midium and small business have the same kind of issues of increasing productivity and cost cutting in expenses.Why don't all of them purchase videoconferencing to address the issues facing them?
I don't say that the cost is the only issue that prevents the ubiquity of videoconferencing. And I think that cultural, or human behavor, technology are also big issues as well, but given the fact that 500,000 endpoints are deployed around the world, many companies are benefitting from using it, basically the biggest issue is the cost or pricing.
I think if pricing for low end set-top videoconferencing system goes down as low as USD2000 or less, something will be changed in the market.

posted 30 May 2002 09:11 AM               

Group videoconferencing (which I think is compelling as an application, more later) needs a reliable, low cost network (which IP will eventually become) and easier ways to make calls (advanced directory services and scheduling systems will help here). Information sharing can also get better: though the ability to share your pc screen is nice, it is a network hog and not as effective as some of the web conferencing technologies (webex's UCF as an example). Finally, videoconferences need to include phone and browser endpoints to increase the potential number of endpoints. So I don't think it's just cost ....

The sleeper here is the desktop, which has been a disappointment: Desktop VC is not compelling enough as a stand-alone application. I think desktop video will be accepted as a feature that will be added to web conferencing. The results shown with a simple USB camera and a decent IP connection are very adequate for 1:1 talking heads video. This is where the volume will occur.

posted 31 May 2002 09:16 AM               

Interesting thread, two throw my tupence worth into the fray.

I suspect videophones might be the future, IP based of course :-)

Truely convergent technology though; a phone that has VC, Voice and serves data to your PC.

Think motionmedia, with a IP card/switch inside (so you can plug your computer into the phone).
Possibly an analog phone port so it can use the old fashion phone system, but possibly not.

Then throw some good (and cheap) infrastructure at it, so think gateway, etc.

The goal being a box on the desk that is both your normal and your VC phone.

I suspect that the desktop/pc based kit is not taking off because it suffers from all the problems that your PC suffers from. Who here has not sworn at their PC when it's crashed then?
My feeling is if you turn the VideoPhone into a hub/switch that the PC runs through, then we get some convergence there. (possibly the VideoPhone might act as a DHCP router?

What do you think?

posted 04 June 2002 12:42 PM            

And as for Desktop VC, I think that it does not satisfy the people's need for solution that can be used anywhere, any time, ease of use which I think is a prerequisite for ubiquity of usage. So I rather guess that mobile video phone may produce large usage volume as it satisfy anywhere, any time users can hold video meetings. And as far as I thought, when I tried a working mobile videophone in Japan, it was not dificult to use it, easily start a video call and receive the call as well. Some other people may have different comments on it, however.

The problem of the working mobile videophone is that the battery dies out so quickly, it usually can last 50-70 minutes at best if you have a video call continously. And even though they uses a display on the handset that saves the battery, but it only last as mentioned 50-70 minutes. I think that they wanted to use the best display but there is a trade off between battery life and display as one issue associated with the handset.

Keis
1:15am JST +9GMT

posted 05 June 2002 11:43 AM            

1. Who are we selling to: Unfortunately the Bottom line is in this recession threatened time that only board members have any sort of sign off. In my experience, VC resellers do not target this level, prefering the comfortable IT manager route....no project sign off.
2. There are actually three resellers out there, the AV intgrator, the Video Network Specialist, the box shifter. All to often the reseller tries to offer customers something they just cannot do....leading to a bad experience in new age technology.
3. There are no "large companies" taking the industry by the scruff of the neck. Why EDS, Accenture and the like have not seen the potential of video yet is hard to see. The introduction of such companies will definitely see an upturn in exposure.
4. There is a far too insular view inside of our little industry, with people comfortable having their little niches. I find it exciting that Tandberg (the most progressiveley thinking video firm) are now employing exclusively from outside the industry.
5. The systems need to cease being a compliated meeting room tool and move towards becoming as simple as the phone.....but with a WOW! factor. Video can offer that wow factor to anyone new to the technology.

posted 06 June 2002 09:34 AM               

I would ask that if one wants to plug their company, which is ok as long as it's in context with the discussion, that one please identify themselves as being from that company and using "we" instead of "they" ... let's be a little up front here!

That being said, what "barrier" is Vianet specifically removing to make video gain mainstream acceptance? Price? Is that enough?

posted 06 June 2002 04:17 PM            

quote:

---

Keisuke Hashimoto wrote:
... midium and small business have the ... issues of increasing productivity and cost cutting in expenses. Why don't all of them purchase videoconferencing to address the issues facing them?

---

Small company manager´s voice:
I may save some 1000 USD per meeting, but I have to pay hard for SORRY-U-CAN´T, for all things I´m not able to do this way plus additional organizational hazzles through technical issues and unforeseen demands for change of my routine workflow.

• Who tells me in meeting´s advance, that all this SORRY-U-CAN´T will be not critical to meeting success ?
  
• Who tells me at decision time, how many successful conference calls I will have ?
  
• How high is the risk to need a quick flight after a crashed call ?
  
• How long will it take for me to become familiar with those NEW applications never seen before ?
  
• What add-on brings video compared to an audio conference easy from my desktop with powerpoint previously distributed by mail ?
  

A remarkable part of the half a million VC systems sold are offline in terms of

• plugs pulled out
  
• lack of trust by unsuccess stories
  
• people experienced with are gone away
  
• cards incompatible to actual PCs
  
• ...
  

Strategies to manage the change at well known applications (VOIP to build the infrastructure - VC as a feature enhancement)
can make the decisioning easier at the cost side, but not at the benefit side.

How to take it ?
Taste comes by eating, and trust comes by success. Total cost of ownership has to include the cost of early success delivery.
The SORRY-U-CAN´T factor is mostly a lack of knowledge and experience. The first encounter has to come like a role playing game, not like an public examination.
Combination of VC and a benefitting application is very durable. E.g. we have very good results by introduction of desktop VC as an e-learning tool.
This is a vote for workflow-focused external training, consulting and support. Sell applications, not features ...
... by using our B2B service

Mero

posted 12 July 2002 04:46 PM               

Yes, I would agree Keisuke that when you add up the travel savings and effectiveness communication and time savings of being able to be at so many places without leaving one's office and subtract that from one's monthly VC charge and cost of equipment, then yes, the majority of companies will find that they can save their company money. So I am confused too: Why don't more people use it?

My point of view is that VC development shares some similarities with the cell phone, fax and PC in its early years. That is, for example, when the cell phone first came out it was a big business expense. But once the service reduced in prices below the house phone, then people purchased them like crazy. And now people ask, how in the world did we ever do business without them? And if the prices of cell phone service today were to increase to late 1980 prices, when people said, " Yes, they are effective, but they cost too much" and thus few people bought them, then I feel people today would still purchase them because they are so effecitve.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, VC for small businesses are going to have to drop dramatically IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE TO TRY IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. Then, people will say, this technology is so good. I didn't know how easy it is to use and didn't know that it feels like they were in the other room. I should have started using this years ago. The price needs to drop below $500 USD per month for all monthly charges of using VC for 10 hours per month including cost of renting the T-1 line or ISDN lines, being able to do multipoint calls and calls to and from ISDN, IP and VPN.

Well, at least that is the price that my boss has said she will begin to use VC.
And is seems like the minimum cost for our small business of one office, 6 employees to do ten hours of VC a month would be closer to $700 or $800 per month and that is using ISDN lines.

(Note: my numbers could be slightly off-- but I think you get my point that there has to be some monthly fee the VC network providers should be shooting for to make VC cost effective for small business like ours. Once the small businesses start buying into VC, then it will become mainstream.)

I have contacted Savvis, Mysergy and Glowpoint and Qwest. None of them have put packages on my desk that can beat the ISDN monthly and per VC costs, which my boss won't pay to do VC. Does anyone know of any other companies that might provide a more cost effective solution for our company?

Once our company starts using VC then my boss will say: Why didn't I start using this years ago? I can't live without it.

posted 14 July 2002 09:04 PM               

I believe a critical question has been avoided in this thread. That is the question of necessity. In other words, critical applications. The problem with VC has historically been price and reliability. But the reason it has not penetrated larger companies more deeply or smaller companies as a whole is the fact that it is not viewed as a business critical application. Nice to have? Yes. Effective? Yes. Enhances the meeting experience? Absolutely! Business critical? For the most part, no. That is the problem.

Telephones, firewalls, email, and office application suites, Internet Browsers, networks, LANs. WANS, Intranets. These are critical applications, not videoconferencing. In the near future we may include web conferencing as a business critical application as well.

I ask you all to seriously think about the hurdle videoconferencing presents against webconferencing. If I want to have a web conference with all one of you right now, I can do it by posting a small piece of information to this thread and you all can join. The reason? You all have a phone, an Internet connection and a browser and know how to use them. If I want to have you all join in a videoconference, you all must locate a suitable room with equipment, tell me your video numbers, I must schedule a bridge, your equipment must be up to date and compatible and I must know your transmission speed and capabilities. The odds that my efforts to show you a data presentation will function adequately or be of decent business quality through a bridge to unknown equipment types is extremely low. This is the reality we still face!

So, how to “fix” this “problem”? I frankly do not see this as a problem per say. If video is not mainstream, is it not possible that it is not a mainstream application? Why must we force this issue? I am not trying to put a damper on videoconferencing by any means. I managed a very large worldwide video network for a number of years and we gained tremendous benefit from the technology. But if the technology suddenly went away, our business would continue. If email went away, well, that’s a disaster. So let’s not get caught up in trying to ascribe a preordained result for the use of videoconferencing. Customers have seen, heard and read about videoconferencing and if it becomes important enough, they will fully embrace it.

Thank you for your attention

Joe O’Donnell

posted 13 August 2002 12:13 PM               

First to declare an interest, I sell cheap ISDN minutes within the UK to the VC market.

The call costs in the UK are never fully explored. On the standard national carrier tariff (80% of the market) a 2 hour call to Japan will cost £1,512.00 at 384K. We have customers who make these calls every week. Even at a discounted rate, down to £600 for the call, this puts hardware costs in the shade.

Make a bridged call in the UK and the leading provider will charge £2.84 per minute per channel to Japan, this before port charges.

Until costs fall rapidly for point to point ISDN, Video use will be restricted. IP the great hope is still way beyond most users reach in terms of cost and implementation.

posted 13 August 2002 12:25 PM               

I am not sure if you are aware but cheap ISDN already exists. Calls from countries like Germany, France, Spain, and Italy to the US via ISDN are very inexpensive. Also, calls emanating from Bell Canada via ISDN are extremely competitive.

Also, I think your post misses the point. It is not price that restricts the growth of videoconferencing but culture. People who sell video for a living and have been immersed in this industry for years still do not consider video technology when trying to contact me. They use phone and email, and on occasion we use web conferencing. We are all technically astute and quite capable of conducting videoconferences, but quite frankly it does not occur to us to do it. It is not a way of life like phone and email is. The question we need to ask is; if videoconferencing were free, would everyone then use it?

posted 14 August 2002 06:49 AM               

I think a number of other factors also exist that contribute to this. I once saw research that indicated that around 85% of the intellectual interactivity in a VC is delivered by voice. I guess this is still true. Video would then only appear to add-value to a meeting by sharing audio, something audio conferences do and I suspect why these have grown considerably. I suspect the growth of web conferencing also fits in here.

If a technology aspires to mission critical status, as you point out, it has to be immediately accessible when it is called on to perform. ISDN VC has never achieved this and in my opinion never will since no single provider actually delivers all of the call to all of the locations. One network provider will never take responsibility for completing the call, so can you rely on it?

Cost is an issue but mostly this is can be addressed by justification of the financial benefit of a wider deployment. In most circumstances this justification is done with easily defined tangible 'applications'. VC is not an application, it is a transport mechanisim for sharing ideas and delivering knowledge. Innovative people 'invent' applications, I would bet that participants in this thread could name a 'service' they could provide straight away using videoconferencing but few exist.

I believe this last point is crucial. VC is largely internal to a company and adds no 'sales' revenue. It is thus ignored as a source of income by business leaders and thus development money is very hard to come by.

IP is the answer.
It will provide a platform where almost anything is possible, is supported by IT staff who would be delighted to get finabce to really converge voice, video and data and crucially can be made available to sellers and buyers in a homogeneous manner to interact. That will attract the business leaders to invest in VC as mission critical as they have with email etc.

There are a lot of issues that need to be overcome with this view and I don't pretend to have all the answers but it does need a radical rethink on what we as industry spokepeople promote.

phil sewell

posted 19 August 2002 02:55 PM               

Andy N wrote:
________________________________
Information sharing [in VC] can also get better: though the ability to share your pc screen is nice, it is a network hog and not as effective as some of the web conferencing technologies (webex's UCF as an example).
_______________________________

My reply:
I am considering buying VC system for my company. I am a little confused here Andy. Countless VC vendors have told me that screen sharing, i.e. showing power-points (data) takes up very little bandwidth. It is the video portion that takes up the bandwidth. So in a regular VC over IP or ISDN meeting I should be able to effectively simultaneously show my face on one screen and my power-point on the other screen.

So why would you say "....screen sharing is a network hog....." Please explain.

posted 19 August 2002 09:36 PM               

The technology used to display presentations via videoconference can vary slightly between vendors; however the approach is essentially the same and it differs quite a bit from web conferencing techniques. For example, if you and I were conducting a 384K point to point videoconference with Tandberg equipment and I wished to show you a PowerPoint presentation, several things occur. Tandberg uses a technology called Duo Video™ which allows participants to see a live PC presentation and the presenter simultaneously. At this juncture, the video uses a tunneling technology to dynamically split the video signal sending two simultaneous streams; one displaying people and the other displaying data. The streaming technique uses the existing bandwidth allocation whether across ISDN, or IP. Conference participants will notice a slight degradation of video quality as some of the bandwidth originally allocated for showing people is now showing data. When you are finished presenting, the full bandwidth is reallocated to the video picture. Both PictureTel 900 series and Polycom FX series have similar capabilities.

As for being this technique being network hog, I believe Andy is referring to the compression techniques used by web conferencing verse streaming used by videoconferencing. Web conferencing products use techniques where data files are compressed by as much as 80% and still maintain acceptable image quality. Such lossy compression techniques send very little data across a network compared to videoconferencing. More important is the fact the videoconferencing uses a streaming technology where a constant bit rate is required that places a far greater burden on the network than bursty technologies such as web conferencing which send very small packets of data only when required. Graphing the technologies in action would bear this out in a dramatic way.

I hope that helps your situation.

Regards,

posted 20 August 2002 03:38 PM               

Thanks for your comments. I understand what you mean: VC screen sharing takes up more bandwidth and places far greater burden on the network than web conferencing does.

The follow-up question to this is then with screen sharing during a VC (whether on a Polycom or Tandberg system) with lets say a power-point one screen and my face on the other screen, is there going to be much difference in overall quality between 384Kbps and 512Kbps.

I have been told that under normal circumstances there is not that much difference between a 384Kbps and 512kbps VC. But perhaps when screen sharing is added including video or power-point, then there is a significant difference. Perhaps I might even need to consider going up to 768Kbps?

posted 20 August 2002 03:58 PM               

The difference between 384K and 512K from a pure videoconferencing perspective is rather small. If you jump to 512K from 384K with the intention of screen sharing, there will be an increase in transfer speed and screen refresh on the data side. The video bandwidth shared is larger so the overall quality improves as well. But be assured that at 384K is still quite acceptable. Also keep in mind priorities. When you are screen sharing, the focus now becomes the data, not the people, so the shift in resources and video quality is a reasonable tradeoff.

768K in my opinion is overkill. You are doubling your network costs just to see an X percentage improvement in VC quality and screen sharing. Not worth the jump in my opinion. Also, a jump to 768K will impact your line resources. If you are behind a PBX with PRI lines for example, you are steeling many more trunk lines and may need to order additional lines and/or PBX cards. This is an additional fixed monthly cost to add on top of the increased network cost.

My cost/benefit analysis I have done for companies suggests that the resources, quality and costs required for VC screen sharing are prohibitive when compared to web conferencing. But if you require the face to face features of videoconferencing and must share data, a 384K connection serves adequately.

Feel free to email me at joe@confrasave.com if you would like to discuss further.

posted 21 August 2002 07:47 AM            

Bret Reis wrote:
___________________________________
Countless VC vendors have told me that screen sharing, i.e. showing power-points (data) takes up very little bandwidth. It is the video portion that takes up the bandwidth.

So why would you say (Andy) "....screen sharing is a network hog....." Please explain.
__________________________________

there are different ways to share data/PC screens inband (embedded in a videocall):

1. Still image transfer
A higher resolved frame is transfered in several parts between video frames. After a second, the whole frame is there. This way takes up little bandwidth. It is receivable by all vendors with more or less comfort. Sources are usually video inputs (VGA by ScanConverter) Polycom e.g. has a direct way to convert PPT files or zoomed regions of a PC screen into this format.
PRO: well standardized, works with low bandwidth, best resolution, if sender has the option to zoom/select a window. Some systems can store the slide sended
CON: no animations, sender has to press buttons, FCIF/SVGA resolution is too low for a whole PC screen, 1way: no interaction nor feedback.

2. Dual Video channels
As described by Joseph. Sends a second video channel with more or less resolution. This takes up a lot of bandwidth for the advantage of sending everything happening on the PC screen. Actually not standardized. Solutions are called "Duo video", "PeopleAndContent","ImageShare","VisualConcert", ...
PRO: Animation/MousePointing, easy PC interface using VGA out only , No special action to send a new slide/application
CON:Proprietary (hazzles with different vendors,older systems at the far end, multipoint units), Full PC screen only (except VisualConcertPC), No transport from PC to PC. 1Way: no interaction

3.T.120 data conference
Opens a bidirectional data channel with
Chat,Whiteboard,ApplicationSharing known from the leading implementation MS Netmeeting.
Well standardized, but difficult to implement for developers. Bandwidth consumption (and therefore performance) depend on the implementation (success starts at 24kbps,max is around 120 kbps over ISDN). Sharing of selected windows is possible with interactive remote control by receiving sites.
PRO: Interaction and collaboration,
The only data conferencing tool tunneling through ISDN VC calls. Standardized generic transport for any application.
CON:Special preparations at the receiving sites needed. Very bad (or low bandwidth only) implementations seen on the market. technician´s hate object, if T.120 training for endusers was not ordered. Development of the standard sleeps.

So far the inband VC sharing solutions. In comparison to web conferencing let me provocate (returning to this thread´s topic):
Today, web conferencing satisfies the customer´s data conferencing demands better than VC. The VC industry has given up interactivity, flexibility and attractivity for the mainstream by NOT developing a T.120 successor. The DualChannel Video is a tribute to the executive´s meeting room demands (zero-administration, zero-collaboration,statements-only). This is a step back from the one-call all-purpose instrument to a picture phone with PC input.

If looking for mainstream, one should innovate on the low bandwidth, unique access vendor-independent solutions instead of packing 512 kbps demands on future VC locations and limit the information transfer to I-show-you-my-complete-desktop.

Comments welcome
----------------
contact@video-coaching.net

posted 23 August 2002 01:56 PM               

A lot of what you are saying is really beyond me. However, all of you really drive home a very important point: VC can be tremendously high quality and a great value added service if a person takes the time and fiancial investment to consult with experts to customize a VC system to operate its full capability. For example, it shouldn't be a big issue to program my Tandberg system to better process simultaneous data and video.

In the larger companies, there should be plenty of internal IT people that can do this. But smaller businesses always have to hire outside to get the IT person to come in. This commonly means they won't make the financial investment to bring the IT people in. And thus their systems are never used to its full capability. This is the barrier my company is facing.

Most people do not think like tech people or consultants. Most people want to buy a VC system and expect it to be work as conveniently as the phone with no servicing needed. Lazy, yes. But this is the reality of the market.

I hope that Tandberg, Polycom and other vendors are providing the proper service and tech advice after the equipment is sold and make it convenient to the client.

VC systems not being used to its full capabilities prevents business people from using VC more and introducing it to more people.

I hope you consultants are driving home the point to your clients that after you buy a system one has to invest the money to service and customize the system on a annual basis.

posted 27 August 2002 05:21 AM               

One of the big issues I see in VC is the proliferation of resellers. Too many sharks out there, not enough expertise to go around.

Sadly the result is that the market is dominated by "Box shifters", and the customers often get a raw deal.
How often have we seen a expensive system installed in a corporate boardroom, never to be touched. The salesman is happy but will the customer be?

I whole heartedly believe that VC needs to move away from the photocopier/fax machine salesman approach and get more of an IT consultant approach going on.

My other thought is that large organisations don't have the expertise to advise on VC any more than small firms do.
In my experience I have seen terrible solution put together by IT people who claim to know VC.

The best solution I can suggest is a good quality VC consultant, working WITH the IT/telecoms people at the clients organisation.

posted 28 August 2002 12:09 PM            

I don't think that VC is meeting ubiquitous needs of potential VC users. That is why we have seen this kind of topic over and over for the past years.

Unlike huge pueblic interest in IT area in Japan and billions of dollars or more in the deployment of IT technology are spent, the public interest of the Japanese in VC is very small. I would say that that is the public disinterest.

It is easy to draw hundreds of people more to IT seminars, but it is relatively difficult to get a hundred attendees to VC seminars in Japan. Why? Because people in general are not interested in VC.

This industry can not laugh such potential customers who do not know much about VC or its benefit as ignorants. It is the industry's fault because the industry's effort is not enough and that is why their products and services are not meeting the potential users' needs. It is not customers's fault.

The industry must now to come up with ideas to convice them that VC is good for them. This is the industry's duty if they want to make money and make a living in this playground.

And I do not see much visions coming from this industry like "we are going to change your life in such and such ways by VC". Or "in the year 2010, our life will be like this."Or we are going to make this industry such and such." I have heard similar kind of "vision", but it is too weak.

And I do not feel any passion from people in this industry and vision coming from them. This may be the first issue we have to tackle. I think that if people in this industry do not have passion for VC, this industry will not grow any further.

You can not laugh about this issue, passion, vision or dream is indespensable for the growth of business as people are running companies and industry.

As I looked into past Japanese companies's success and economic miracle after the complete distruction by WWII, people in Japan had passion, dream and vision for the future, therefore, they could achive something. We see lack of everything right now, however in Japan in general besides some exceptions. I think that basically the same thing can be applied for this industry.

posted 28 August 2002 01:22 PM               

That was very well put. I agree with you in total about the lack of vision. Vendors and resellers appear to believe that the value of videoconferencing is intrinsic. It is not. It must be realized over time. This requires an investment of both capital and technical skills.

When I was manager of conferencing for a worldwide fortune 100 company, we had one of the largest video networks, certainly with the greatest disbursement reaching Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, and India. I am proud to say we were a case study of successful videoconferencing implementation. We used videoconferencing quite often and for specific applications such as worldwide engineering meetings or communications briefings. Specifically, the communications briefings, which went out over video to as much as 70 sites (40 countries) at one time involved an address by the CEO, an introduction to new senior staff members, and a strategy briefing. I can attest from personal experience that locations with little visibility to our world headquarters were quite pleased to hear from the CEO via video on the status of the company. We would often forget at US World Headquarters how far removed one can feel in Singapore for example. Video conferencing helped to personalize the CEO making him more effective in controlling 56,000 employees and 7 engineering centers across the globe. It also provided a platform to highlight over-achieving locations. For example, it was quite effective over live broadcast with 40 other countries watching to have the CEO praise Australia for a recent contract win.

Finally, as for vision, that was a combination of me, the CEO, and our VP of communications who were synchronously committed to make the technologies work to the advantage of the business. We did not let “technology glitches” or other problems destroy the faith in the technology or the overall vision of its benefits. I was very fortunate to have a CEO who understood the benefits of VC and if requests were reasonable, would give the green light on expenditures. The expenditures yielded fruit as well. In year 2001, we spent 3.5 million on video reducing travel by 35.4 million. A fair trade off I would say.

So in conclusion, I would say that without the financial and technical commitment to realize the benefits, VC may remain stagnant. On the other hand, those reading about my experience may take another look.

posted 01 September 2002 03:07 PM               

It is unfortunate that we as a culture has gotten so accustomed to the convenience factor of technology-- such as the cell phone. The situation is that with one poor experience of VC, or not having it available at one's desktop or being disatisfied with the quality of picture at 3 site VC at 192 each sites--pay a little more money to increase the bandwidth!

It reminds of the situation close to ten years ago when my father, a professor, was trying to convinence me to use I believe it was called the Gopher Network to get online into the University of Minnesota library to see what books were available in my area of studies-- political science. He was doing this for several libraries across the United States and was bringing in very sigificant books for his own research. But because of the inconvience factor, I was always too lazy to do it. Now I see with just a little more patience, I could have used it as a great tool.

posted 09 September 2002 08:16 AM            

First, I think the price is an important issue. When we look vc market size of countries with small GDP/capita and (Eastern Europe) and well developed countries we see the difference per capita is several times.

Btw, the number of VCRs sold has grown tremendeously when the price dropped under $300. Though the market is very different, I think there is an important price-level. The level is different by countries.

Second, some have mentioned that videoconferencing is not business critical. At the same time, by nature, people want to see a picture when they communicate. Therefore, the opinion about vc would change if it was on desktop easy, fast and good quality.

In other words, sales of video communication would grow if it would go into masses. But that is NOT what vc resellers want. Probably VC producers don't want it either. If it was affordable, fast and with satisfying quality on desk why would someone purchase a good quality group system? Both, resellers as well as producers would lose their market niche.

Please could you argue if I am wrong with above,

posted 09 September 2002 08:33 AM               

It seems strange that desktop videophone type solutions are not more popular for many of the reasons mentioned on this thread.

Presumably this is a throw back to old technology that was not very good.

Do people think that products like the Polycom Executive and Tandberg 1000 (I think) are going to have a big impact?

Personally this style of independant "box" suits me better than it being associated with my (ever crashing) PC.

Perhaps a less than $300 solution in this area would help?

Margins and profits make a big impact, how many resellers puch the Polycom ViaVideo with the vigor they sell it's bigger relatives? Naff all, why? Because they make more money of the big systems than the small. So why would they want to sell small systems!

I feel we are in a weird half-way world, where the next step to getting VC mainstream acceptance is to get it as people have said "on the desktop" but the industry itself would probably die if we did it.
So we sit with our big systems and continue onwards to....who knows.

Big boyz, let us know how you see it!

posted 09 September 2002 10:38 AM               

Allow me to address a few of your points.

1) Price: While price is important, culture and deployment logistics will always trump price. Even if videoconferencing were totally free, the Telecom and IT department would still have to contend with managing the equipment, tech support, infrastructure, etc. Those issues come before price. If those things can be managed, then we negotiate price afterwards. When ever I evaluated technologies when I was at my previous job, the first question asked “can we support this?”.

2) VCR’s. The reason the price-point argument works for VCRs is that they are low-tech and require no overhead to maintain and use. Their functionality is pure and practical. The only thing stopping people buying VCR’s WAS price as opposed to VC where there are many more barriers.

3) Desktop VC is perhaps the biggest failure of this industry. I think that desktop VC could potentially follow web conferencing, which enjoys good growth right now. However, desktop always suffered from the least common denominator, your PC. Also, you must remember that those in charge of videoconferencing at companies may be able to support 30 video systems in 12 locations, but with desktop; you could be talking about 1,000 systems that are no more reliable, perhaps even less. Add to that the fact that some of these systems would be deployed to executives’ homes! Who supports all this? Finally, once you involve a PC in the equation, the support question can become blurred. Who owns the support issues now, Telecom, IT, Facilities? That’s the million dollar question that evokes an answer no one wants to deal with.

4) What is a meeting? I actually disagree with the assessment that people would choose to meet individually at desktops. Overall, people are far more effective in clusters of groups, the way group video systems work today. This is also why desktop has not taken off.

5) And Lance you are correct about the profit margins hurting the marketing push of desktops. Resellers are already hurt by the fact that Polycom change the old margin structure with the introduction of the Viewstation nearly 4 years ago.

posted 09 September 2002 10:53 AM               

cheers for the perspective.
Dunno if I will ever agree in reegard to cost being a lesser issue. Any windows user can VC right now for free, but don't due to quality issues, so you might be right. But then again the leap to any level of quality is huge. Webcam £30 vs. ViaVideo £400 Vs. PictureTel 900 at £too much to bare thinking about.

In regard to groups of people, yes I know what you say is true. But part also of VC is the idea that we create that group WITH the VC technology.

PC based (like the ViaVideo) I agree is likely despite it's growth at the moment to not be the answer. Else we probably would have our telephones linked to the PC by now. (yes I know there are loads of applications of just this but lets ignore that and stick to the mainstream)

Desktop appliance like systems do have a future. Before the Polycom Executive came out, I had quite some interest in a hand built version. Ie. Polycom 680 with a LCD screen.

Problem is the price is so high that it is no good for a desktop as it seems to cost more than the rest of the office. (whats the Polycom Executive USD$14,000 list or something)
The same tale is true of Voice over IP, why would you when a IP phone is about $400 per phone.

If a VoIP phone cost even as much as $40-$100 they would be much more common I am sure. Same goes for VC kit, if you could get a decent destop system for hundreds rather than thousands then we might see more of them out there.

Again, never likely to happen.
The ViaVideo is a fine product, but what is the profit on it for a reseller, virtually nil. So with that sort of business model, there is no point even selling it.
If resellers don't sell them they don't get popular and then the spiral continues.

Polycom did a lot of business with their "cheap" Viewstation range, becuase compared to the Tandbergs and PictureTels they were hugely cheaper.

I disagree with you as to price not being the primary concern on any VC project. Every company I have ever dealt with on anything tends to look at price first and last.
If the initial price looks realistic, they will explore the options to arrive at an educated solution, if the price for that outweighs the perceived benfits they don't buy or vice-versa.

Agian, I have to disagree and say price is the first and last barrier to the mainstream use of VC.

Lance

posted 09 September 2002 10:56 AM               

If you could offer a company a system like the Polycom 900 series (or for the sake of keeping things open the Tandberg 8000) for say USD$500-$1000 do you think that more people would buy it?

If you said yes, then lets all agree that price is a big if not the biggest factor.

posted 09 September 2002 11:18 AM               

There are already systems available at that price point; they just do not have all the bells, whistles, and horsepower of a Polycom 900 series codec. Zydacron for years has sold an extremely reliable and high quality codec in that price range. So does Vcon. And Lance, what you are proposing already happened 4 years ago when $40,000-$60,000 systems dropped in price by a factor of five and that still did not explode the market. In fact, Polycom today, with the acquisition of PictureTel, DSL products, voice products, and Accord networks barely grosses more in a year than did PictureTel alone 5 years ago. Maybe a better question is not; would more people buy the 900 series if the price dropped 90%, but rather if they did buy it, would it proliferate anymore than the more expensive versions? I’d say no because no matter where the price point is, the other barriers still apply. I know a company that bought over 1,000 whiteboards over a year ago and today they are hardly used. There is much more going on than price.

posted 12 September 2002 10:51 PM               

The conversation about price being the barrier to wide scale acceptance is very interesting. For some time now the consulting and custom fabrication firm Digital Video Enterprises I am a part of has been engaged in the analysis of the most cutting edge of codec technologies. A few years ago we were involved in one-of-a-kind HDTV conferencing design and install for a major financial institution. Recently we have been absorbed in the next generation of VC appliances and software. Let me assure that our industry will be turned up side down in the next 12 to 18 months. Every old business model clung to will be obsolete.

Our firm has been in contact with researchers, chip makers and software designers around the world. This is what we now know for a fact. There will be conferencing boxes the size of a pack cigarettes that provide twice the video quality at a given bandwidth. The chips are now or soon will be available in a couple of months. Reference board designs are ready for purchase. Next generation video compression is nearly completed and I believe ratified by the ITU. These boxes will have all the features needed to conduct group videoconferences.

Guess how much to the end user? $250 - $450

Business models are now being developed for mass consumer use by DSL and Cable operators. These new boxes will make a 256 connection look like a current 512 video connection.

We believe our conferencing industry, distributors, resellers, integrators and so on must rethink the reality that will be here before we know it.

Now let's look at the desktop...

The desktop VC market has always been a disappointment because video has looked like garbage on a little portion of the PC screen. Blow up a CIF image on a XGA screen and it really looks bad! TV quality full screen video has not been available for the PC (I make exceptions for analog internal building systems). So desktop VC has been falsely judge since it has never truly been here in the right form factor, price and ease of use. Desktop VC will soon jump from Kitty Hawk prototypes to screaming rocket boxes with the power of current group systems and controlled not by "windows" (unless you want to) but rather by a phone or a remote control. You don’t have to crack open your PC, plug into your PC, navigate through your PC and crash your PC with VC software.

Desktop Videoconferencing is not doomed to be just a “minor PC feature” as previously shared by another near the beginning of this discussion board. We will all witness in the next few years the birth of a new major consumer electronic item. George Gilder’s telecosm will come to fruition and dark fiber will light up and human communication will be transformed. I know I will be buying many $250 boxes for my family and colleagues.

Some time ago our firm predicted that there would be little or no distinction between group or desktop videoconferencing because the same box would do both just fine. Polycom is the first to try this with the Executive System with an iPower and two LCDs (price 12k plus). Unfortunately the system is a human factor mess. Two screens on the desktop? Check out the camera position! Your "executives" look like they are looking down and 20 or 30 degrees to the left or right. They look like "bad talent" on a cheap cable access TV show. This is not the future of videoconferencing on the desktop.

In this thread see the fine comments of IseeUnow July 7th. I admit my bias here and I quickly agree with those, such as this fine chap, that are wise enough to see the human factor issues confronting VC. This has been a primary R&D effort of our firm. The next frontier for VC is to truly simulate "virtual presence" with larger images (full screen PC monitor images) and resolving the eye contact problem and greatly improving group conferencing. There are now several studies on the human factors of videoconferencing and it is a very real barrier to the satisfaction of VC. Ultimately successful videoconferencing is about humans meeting without the intrusion of technology.

Best to all as you ponder your role and firm's role in the new reality ready to dawn.