3 ms·

We just launched a hardware video conferencing device that uses WebRTC. https://pluot.co https://pluot.co We route all media streams peer-to-peer. Which gives

by kwindla 11y ago

We just launched a hardware video conferencing device that uses WebRTC. https://pluot.co https://pluot.co We route all media streams peer-to-peer. Which gives you the lowest possible latency and highest possible quality on a decent network connection. But, as other comments here have said, using a mesh topology has the downside of degrading badly if you have more than four (or so) participants in a call. We'll add bridging in a future release, to support larger meetings, but it's actually fairly difficult to make a "routing media through the cloud in real time" architecture rock solid -- high quality and reliable for everyone, all the time. We've got customers in eight countries, so far, for example. So we'll need servers in multiple data centers, but somebody on an international call will always be farther from the bridge than is ideal. We've surveyed a lot of people about video conferencing, and there's a lot of dissatisfaction with Hangouts and other similar products, much of which comes down to call quality, much of which is attributable to the difficulty of bouncing media streams through centralized servers. We were in the most recent YC batch (W16) and a bunch of YC companies use our stuff. The basic idea is that big screens are super useful for team meetings, engineering standups, customer demos, etc. But big-screen video conferencing hardware has always been really expensive, or something you have to cobble together yourself. We're turnkey, set up in five minutes, are super easy to use, designed for getting real work done, and the hardware is free. You just pay $50/month per room, and there's no commitment (you can send us back the hardware and cancel any time). You can try the Chrome browser version of our call stack from any laptop/desktop: https://pluot.co/new https://pluot.co/new -- that bounces your browser to a new, unique, permanent meeting URL. We've been following the Apple WebRTC development for a while, because we'd love to support Safari with no plugins, just like we can Chrome. We're hoping for full mobile WebKit support, too.

dougwbrunton 11y ago
(other Pluot co-founder here) Leaning on the Google WebRTC stack for the software that runs on the Pluot hardware device has been fun and interesting. We wrap Chromium (via Electron nee Atom Shell) with a UI designed to take full advantage of the HD TV (or two TV's) pixels and a provide one-click meeting start via any browser that has been paired with the room as a remote control using code displayed on the TV. The web client uses largely the same code as the hardware device to perform its call machinery and screen shares. We'll try to write more about this in the days to come, this week we're turning screwdrivers in the garage to ship orders, and updating the web layouts to be consistent with the in-room experience.
secure 11y ago
> We're turnkey, set up in five minutes, are super easy to use, designed for getting real work done, and the hardware is free. You just pay $50/month per room, and there's no commitment (you can send us back the hardware and cancel any time). So, am I understanding it correctly that your main distinction from Google’s Hangouts-based offering is the pricing model? See https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ (800 USD one-time). I haven’t personally set it up (just used it a lot), so I’m not entirely sure if your statement “designed for getting real work done” implies that Google’s lacks in that regard…?
- kwindla 11y ago
  Pricing is a difference. But we also think our UX is easier, in general, and a better fit for project, design, and engineering meetings. We made lots of little UI choices that we think add up to a different level of ease and productivity. Here are the big things: We support two TVs (if you have two), and two simultaneous screen shares. Our hardware has WiFi, in addition to Ethernet. You control a Pluot box using your phone or laptop. So our "software remote control" always shows you only options that make sense for whatever the state of the Pluot call is, at the moment. There's no remote control to learn or lose. And we can continually update the "software remote control" to improve and simplify things. Hangouts can be futzy because of how Google thinks about identity. It's pretty common for people to have trouble getting calendar invites and joining meetings because they have multiple email addresses but the Google Apps/Hangouts don't treat all of those email addresses equally. We opted for a "no sign in" approach, after doing a lot of user testing. Calendar integration and "identity" is great, when it works, but a real pain when it doesn't. Google's tight integration of Hangouts, Apps, and sign-in is a double edged sword.

by kwindla 11y ago

dougwbrunton 11y ago

(other Pluot co-founder here) Leaning on the Google WebRTC stack for the software that runs on the Pluot hardware device has been fun and interesting. We wrap Chromium (via Electron nee Atom Shell) with a UI designed to take full advantage of the HD TV (or two TV's) pixels and a provide one-click meeting start via any browser that has been paired with the room as a remote control using code displayed on the TV. The web client uses largely the same code as the hardware device to perform its call machinery and screen shares. We'll try to write more about this in the days to come, this week we're turning screwdrivers in the garage to ship orders, and updating the web layouts to be consistent with the in-room experience.

secure 11y ago

> We're turnkey, set up in five minutes, are super easy to use, designed for getting real work done, and the hardware is free. You just pay $50/month per room, and there's no commitment (you can send us back the hardware and cancel any time). So, am I understanding it correctly that your main distinction from Google’s Hangouts-based offering is the pricing model? See https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ (800 USD one-time). I haven’t personally set it up (just used it a lot), so I’m not entirely sure if your statement “designed for getting real work done” implies that Google’s lacks in that regard…?

kwindla 11y ago
Pricing is a difference. But we also think our UX is easier, in general, and a better fit for project, design, and engineering meetings. We made lots of little UI choices that we think add up to a different level of ease and productivity. Here are the big things: We support two TVs (if you have two), and two simultaneous screen shares. Our hardware has WiFi, in addition to Ethernet. You control a Pluot box using your phone or laptop. So our "software remote control" always shows you only options that make sense for whatever the state of the Pluot call is, at the moment. There's no remote control to learn or lose. And we can continually update the "software remote control" to improve and simplify things. Hangouts can be futzy because of how Google thinks about identity. It's pretty common for people to have trouble getting calendar invites and joining meetings because they have multiple email addresses but the Google Apps/Hangouts don't treat all of those email addresses equally. We opted for a "no sign in" approach, after doing a lot of user testing. Calendar integration and "identity" is great, when it works, but a real pain when it doesn't. Google's tight integration of Hangouts, Apps, and sign-in is a double edged sword.