5 ms·

Show HN: Our telepresence setup

38 points by jsatok 16y ago

bmelton 16y ago
I don't mean to be critical, but I am underwhelmed. From the initial picture, I was expecting a homegrown alternative to Cisco's Telepresence which, is actually quite awesome, if not really really expensive. What I got instead was an iMac and a monitor.
- AlexMuir 16y ago
  Yeah, totally pointless post. Buy it, plug it in, install the software. Great.
- j_b_f 16y ago
  Yeah, I feel like a lot of distributed startups have had these 'video portals' going at one time or another. I know we have. Generally use drops off (in favor of standard one-on-one or one-to-many videoconferences) after the novelty ends. Primarily because the fidelity sucks and there are better uses for a large monitor, like watching YouTube videos during lunch.
- matwood 16y ago
  There can be value in simplicity. Years ago I worked for a company that had to do a monthly teleconference with its largest client. The setup and hardware required was expensive and the experience wasn't even that great. It's a testament to how fast technology moves when now anyone with a computer can teleconference.
  - jsatok 16y ago
    That's exactly our feeling. I've seen the Cisco/Polycom systems, and they look great, but they're also a lot more expensive, and for what we (and many other startups) need, the value isn't there.
    - nanijoe 16y ago
      So just say you use Skype with a big screen TV. I opened the link expecting to see how you replicated Cisco/Polycom telepresence using off the shelf products at a fraction of the cost (Which is possible btw)
Legion 16y ago
This is almost exactly what I was going to recommend setting up at our company. Yes, a Mac Mini to an LCD TV isn't the most thrilling of tech articles, but I've been very keen to hear experiences of people using these sort of cobbled-together from commodity hardware "ghetto Telepresence" setups. Our needs (and budget) just don't fit with the more expensive all-in-one solutions. And I imagine the quality of the cobbled-together experience can vary wildly depending on the hardware configuration. So I was excited to read about a setup that is working well for someone.
- jsatok 16y ago
  Exactly! The brand name solutions are great, but provide little flexibility, and aren't very startup friendly. The total for our solution came in under $3k, and we'd be looking at about $15-20k for a brand name system providing similar functionality.
  - icegreentea 16y ago
    You want start-up unfriendly? The Cisco full out 'telepresense' system with 3 1080p cameras. At max settings, Cisco's literature tells you that you're using ~20Mbit/s (including network overhead). The bandwidth costs alone would bankrupt you. But soooo nice.
    - bmelton 16y ago
      Cisco, much like Oracle, probably doesn't make that much money off of the average startup. It might behoove them to wisen up somewhat and start introducing some lighter-weight / lower-cost entries to the market. That said, regarding the 20Mbit/s, never forget that Cisco sells networking equipment. Cisco's point (and it's not a hard sell) is that teleconferencing and network are so interrelated that you may as well buy it all from Cisco. I will say that their 3-screen 1080p telepresence solution is fricking awesome though. Lifelike. BELIEVABLE. And for Fortune 500 companies that are weighing this sort of thing against the cost of flying three people from New York to Tokyo for a meeting, it's not a bad value prop.
callmeed 16y ago
Might want to install FaceTime for Mac as well ...
- jsatok 16y ago
  I forgot about FaceTime. Thanks for the suggestion!
jhrobert 16y ago
I hope the video codec can cope with this, or else this is going to eat a lot of bandwidth for nothing.
- jsatok 16y ago
  We've found iChat to be pretty efficient. In iChat, there is the Bandwidth limit options: http://grab.by/7seD http://grab.by/7seD
joshwa 16y ago
Related: anyone experimenting with telepresence for remote workers, where most of the team are still in the office? -- Have someone bring a laptop with webcam into a conference room? (poor-man's anybots) -- How to deal with whiteboards? Camera? Shared drawing tools? Not satisfied with what I've tried thus far. Would a 720p camera have enough resolution for whiteboards? -- Making everyone work as if they were remote--campfire, webex, skype, etc., even if they are all in the same office? (NB I'm moving overseas in a few months and I'm trying to figure out how I can work closely with my team from 16000 miles away)
trout 16y ago
<cisco plug> There's the $600 version that uses your existing TV also. Imagine this may be closer to what startup's could use. Monthly subscription of $25 http://home.cisco.com/en-us/telepresence/umi/what-you-need http://home.cisco.com/en-us/telepresence/umi/what-you-need </cisco plug>
albertsun 16y ago
Telepresence robots are getting pretty easy to build now. http://samratjp.posterous.com/look-ma-im-controlling-a-telepresence-robot http://samratjp.posterous.com/look-ma-im-controlling-a-telep... Wouldn't it be cool to have one of those for every remote worker so they can roll around the office and find people they need to talk to/point the camera at whatever is needed. Plus you get a screen to do screen sharing onto.
- samratjp 16y ago
  Glad you approve Albert :-) I really don't how I lived without this before. This is definitely the coolest thing I've built.
mikedanko 16y ago
Has anyone used Kinect's video chat? Does it work with computers or is it like the PS3 where you have to have another PS3 to have video? I'm really surprised no one has tried to deploy some business apps for consoles, I'd imagine it'd take off pretty well as it'd be a great excuse for team building after hours.

38 points by jsatok 16y ago

I don't mean to be critical, but I am underwhelmed. From the initial picture, I was expecting a homegrown alternative to Cisco's Telepresence which, is actually quite awesome, if not really really expensive. What I got instead was an iMac and a monitor.

AlexMuir 16y ago
Yeah, totally pointless post. Buy it, plug it in, install the software. Great.
j_b_f 16y ago
Yeah, I feel like a lot of distributed startups have had these 'video portals' going at one time or another. I know we have. Generally use drops off (in favor of standard one-on-one or one-to-many videoconferences) after the novelty ends. Primarily because the fidelity sucks and there are better uses for a large monitor, like watching YouTube videos during lunch.
matwood 16y ago
There can be value in simplicity. Years ago I worked for a company that had to do a monthly teleconference with its largest client. The setup and hardware required was expensive and the experience wasn't even that great. It's a testament to how fast technology moves when now anyone with a computer can teleconference.
- jsatok 16y ago
  That's exactly our feeling. I've seen the Cisco/Polycom systems, and they look great, but they're also a lot more expensive, and for what we (and many other startups) need, the value isn't there.
  - nanijoe 16y ago
    So just say you use Skype with a big screen TV. I opened the link expecting to see how you replicated Cisco/Polycom telepresence using off the shelf products at a fraction of the cost (Which is possible btw)

Legion 16y ago

This is almost exactly what I was going to recommend setting up at our company. Yes, a Mac Mini to an LCD TV isn't the most thrilling of tech articles, but I've been very keen to hear experiences of people using these sort of cobbled-together from commodity hardware "ghetto Telepresence" setups. Our needs (and budget) just don't fit with the more expensive all-in-one solutions. And I imagine the quality of the cobbled-together experience can vary wildly depending on the hardware configuration. So I was excited to read about a setup that is working well for someone.

jsatok 16y ago
Exactly! The brand name solutions are great, but provide little flexibility, and aren't very startup friendly. The total for our solution came in under $3k, and we'd be looking at about $15-20k for a brand name system providing similar functionality.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  You want start-up unfriendly? The Cisco full out 'telepresense' system with 3 1080p cameras. At max settings, Cisco's literature tells you that you're using ~20Mbit/s (including network overhead). The bandwidth costs alone would bankrupt you. But soooo nice.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    Cisco, much like Oracle, probably doesn't make that much money off of the average startup. It might behoove them to wisen up somewhat and start introducing some lighter-weight / lower-cost entries to the market. That said, regarding the 20Mbit/s, never forget that Cisco sells networking equipment. Cisco's point (and it's not a hard sell) is that teleconferencing and network are so interrelated that you may as well buy it all from Cisco. I will say that their 3-screen 1080p telepresence solution is fricking awesome though. Lifelike. BELIEVABLE. And for Fortune 500 companies that are weighing this sort of thing against the cost of flying three people from New York to Tokyo for a meeting, it's not a bad value prop.

callmeed 16y ago

Might want to install FaceTime for Mac as well ...

jsatok 16y ago
I forgot about FaceTime. Thanks for the suggestion!

jhrobert 16y ago

I hope the video codec can cope with this, or else this is going to eat a lot of bandwidth for nothing.

jsatok 16y ago
We've found iChat to be pretty efficient. In iChat, there is the Bandwidth limit options: http://grab.by/7seD http://grab.by/7seD

joshwa 16y ago

Related: anyone experimenting with telepresence for remote workers, where most of the team are still in the office? -- Have someone bring a laptop with webcam into a conference room? (poor-man's anybots) -- How to deal with whiteboards? Camera? Shared drawing tools? Not satisfied with what I've tried thus far. Would a 720p camera have enough resolution for whiteboards? -- Making everyone work as if they were remote--campfire, webex, skype, etc., even if they are all in the same office? (NB I'm moving overseas in a few months and I'm trying to figure out how I can work closely with my team from 16000 miles away)

trout 16y ago

<cisco plug> There's the $600 version that uses your existing TV also. Imagine this may be closer to what startup's could use. Monthly subscription of $25 http://home.cisco.com/en-us/telepresence/umi/what-you-need http://home.cisco.com/en-us/telepresence/umi/what-you-need </cisco plug>

albertsun 16y ago

Telepresence robots are getting pretty easy to build now. http://samratjp.posterous.com/look-ma-im-controlling-a-telepresence-robot http://samratjp.posterous.com/look-ma-im-controlling-a-telep... Wouldn't it be cool to have one of those for every remote worker so they can roll around the office and find people they need to talk to/point the camera at whatever is needed. Plus you get a screen to do screen sharing onto.

samratjp 16y ago
Glad you approve Albert :-) I really don't how I lived without this before. This is definitely the coolest thing I've built.

mikedanko 16y ago

Has anyone used Kinect's video chat? Does it work with computers or is it like the PS3 where you have to have another PS3 to have video? I'm really surprised no one has tried to deploy some business apps for consoles, I'd imagine it'd take off pretty well as it'd be a great excuse for team building after hours.