3 ms·
Well: A) - Full HD video conferencing for ~ 100 people is not cheap. At all. Bandwidth costs alone would be huge. B) - For teams that work together remotely, i
by mugsie 9y ago
Well:
A) - Full HD video conferencing for ~ 100 people is not cheap. At all. Bandwidth costs alone would be huge.
B) - For teams that work together remotely, it is very important for them to meet in person from time to time. Communication issues drop when you can put a face and personality to a name on IRC / email. (and no, this is not achieved via video calls)
- Markoff 9y agowhat's expensive about providing one one way video stream with live text chat for participants to ask questions? as for putting face to name,I can't hardly imagine how this could be positive for concentration and work, I am more likely going to be neural and more efficient if I treat other party as robot than someone with face, because then you lose focus on work
- GFischer 9y agoI agree with your second point, not so much with the first, I've seen very intelligent approaches to video conferencing (only full HD video for the speaker, and dynamic upscaling-downscaling based on who's speaking), not to mention bandwidth is very cheap now. Communication is still a lot better face to face, but video conferencing is getting a lot better (and I'm betting on that with my own startup attempt :) ). I'd definitely schedule periodic face to face meetings for remote teams, but that doesn't mean remote cannot work.
- Markoff 9y agomaybe i was not clear, there is no need to show participants at all, they would be fine with love text chat, you only need one video stream of trainee, which would be very cheap, they could even use Youtube