3 ms·
There 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
by tomsaffell 16y ago
There 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.