4 ms·
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 actuall
by 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 agoYeah, totally pointless post. Buy it, plug it in, install the software. Great.
- j_b_f 16y agoYeah, 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 agoThere 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 agoThat'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 agoSo 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)