5 ms·
This article doesn't mention it directly, but after reading the bit about the FlipLive makes this more likely to me: the wrong people in Cisco finally realized
by bpeebles 16y ago
This article doesn't mention it directly, but after reading the bit about the FlipLive makes this more likely to me: the wrong people in Cisco finally realized what Flip might be able to do. Which is replace Cisco's teleconferencing enterprise business. And doing so even a little bit would probably cost them a pretty penny, so they're dumping it to protect what they see as their "core" business.
- hammock 16y agoSounds like an opportunity for ... dun dun-dun dun! an entrepreneur! Who wants to build a prototype with me?
- tomsaffell 16y agoThere was never any risk of v1 of FlipLive cannibalizing the teleconferencing business - it was one-way only - no way for the 'viewers' to send a stream back to the publisher's camera. BTW - I wrote some of web software (the ActionScript) for FlipLive.
- bpeebles 16y agoInteresting, yeah I hadn't thought through to the two-way part of it. And I might be totally off-base, but it just felt like it maybe it we edging close.
- riverlaw 16y agocan you explain some of the thinking behind the flip slide? It was bigger and didn't add much function. Thanks
- tomsaffell 16y agoI didnt work on that project. I was a contractor, so pretty much only saw the stuff I worked on.
- Duff 16y agoThe whole premise of Cisco's teleconferencing business is maintaining the illusion that that it has to be expensive to do -- which isn't true for 80% of the market at least. Cisco won't make billions on peddling their stuff to the 20% of the market who has a few million to drop on a telepresence system.
- njharman 16y ago2 one-way connections == 1 two-way connection. Both sides just need flip and something to view it on. Even if that something was gold plated it would be cheaper than "enterprise" conferencing systems.