30 ms·

Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

259 points by slb 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
akama 13y ago
If this is comparable to the Chromecast in terms of ease of use and simplicity while still being able to be a functional product with the features companies need, I could see this being very popular. I love how simple the Chromecast is, it allows everybody to work it with no hassle. I hope this product also accomplishes that goal.
VikingCoder 13y ago
I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me? I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  The competition for this product (Cisco, Magor, etc) can easily run into 6 figures. Think of it as Google charging $500 for the software & configuration in addition to the $250/year. Would you rather they made their money by showing ads during your conference?
  - incision 13y ago
    Precisely. $250/yr. isn't even pocket change - it's lint relative to the price of a Tandberg set up.
- aiiane 13y ago
  The $250/year is for support and maintenance.
- 9to5Seth 13y ago
  Let's go shopping, shall we? I recognize that Camera as a Logitech ($90) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B00ATTIPZO&adid=1NNSTPRYJANG77ZD3DP9& https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0... and that mic is a Jabra Speak 410 ($85) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393185&creativeASIN=B004ELA7TA&linkCode=shr&tag=thepartim-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213... And that remote looks like the one that comes with a Google TV ($40). We know the ASUS Box starts at under $200. I'll cut you a deal and sell it to you for $500?
  - telcodud 13y ago
    Not the Asus Chromebox that uses Intel Core i7.
    - nly 13y ago
      I can't fathom why this thing even needs such a high power CPU. Presumably it's running Android, so why not go with ARM + a nice video coprocessor to handle video?
  - sandyarmstrong 13y ago
    The i7 version will be more than $200, too.
- nairteashop 13y ago
  I agree. I don't get what "support and maintenance" means. I currently have a set-top box (Apple TV), webcam, HD camera and speakers, and don't pay a yearly "maintenance" for any of them. Why would running a teleconferencing software on such a setup cost $250/year? The only motivation I can see is: "well the competition charges a hefty recurring fee, so why shouldn't we", but then the competition isn't doing all that well for this reason. I see a lot of resemblance to Cisco's "Umi" product, which had a $25/mo fee as well, and was a total flop.
  - aiiane 13y ago
    You don't pay a yearly maintenance for any of them because if they break, you're going to have to fix them yourself. Most companies prefer to actually have a support plan, because if they don't, the alternative is to pay their own people to fix them, and it's usually cheaper to not pay someone full-time to have expertise in that area. This is a business-focused product offering.
    - nairteashop 13y ago
      We had hundreds of expensive Macs at my last gig. Guess how many of those we bought AppleCare for? Zero. This was also true of pretty much every piece of electronic equipment we owned. Note that this isn't very unusual either at most companies. Given the low failure rate of most electronics, it is simply cheaper for the business/IT team to buy a replacement Mac / router / whatever than to pay any kind of yearly maintenance fee, which is always designed to make more money for the vendor. $250/year for a $999 piece of equipment is not a good deal. If it were an option, like AppleCare, most would advise you to not take it.
      - aiiane 13y ago
        It's not just hardware support, though - it's service support. Unlike a Macbook, which doesn't rely on Apple services to function, this system is built on top of the Hangouts service.
      - nly 13y ago
- taopao 13y ago
  The BT phone bridges that sales and marketing seem to enjoy so much (whyyyyy) are a recurring cost that dwarfs this outlay.
- carioca3 13y ago
  I don't think HN is the target audience for this product. Many of us can roll out our own cheaper solution. This is targeted towards the non tech-savvy managers that want a cheaper video conference solution. The 250 dollar a year fee is tiny for a large company but large enough to prevent home users from adopting it.
rayshan 13y ago
This is really cool, unlike other enterprise teleconference vendors, this is single fee up-front and free ongoing. Can you chromecast to a chromebox? If so this can replace the crap load of Apple TVs we have at work, great for the 1/2 of folks that're on Thinkpads. edit: missed "includes first year's $250 management & support fee"
- spankalee 13y ago
  You can do better than Chromecast with the Chromebox setup, you can share your screen, window, or document, into the hangout so that all participants can see it. You can do this now with Hangouts, you don't need the Chromebox. We use this at Google for all of our video conferencing, and have for years. It's very well battle tested. Edit: It looks like there's a $250/year fee per Chromebox. I'm not sure if that's good or bad compared to other vendors. You can connect from your computer or phone for free though.
- dmdeller 13y ago
  Not free ongoing. > Chromebox, plus everything you need for video meetings. Starting at $999. > includes first year's $250 management & support fee source: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for-meetings.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for...
- markhelo 13y ago
  Thought it said 250 per year after first year.
- btgeekboy 13y ago
  Assuming your Thinkpad-toting friends are running Windows... http://www.airsquirrels.com/airparrot/ http://www.airsquirrels.com/airparrot/
fidotron 13y ago
Great, but any company big enough to be in the market for this should probably not be using Hangouts to hold meetings in.
- nkozyra 13y ago
  because ... ?
  - ocfx 13y ago
    Can't you only have like 8 people in the meeting or something?
    - rory096 13y ago
      > Join meetings with up to 15 participants https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for-meetings.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for...
    - azurezyq 13y ago
      that's 15 streams, e.g, 15 meeting rooms
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - spankalee 13y ago
      It says 15. We've only hit this limit with very large all-hands meetings or presentations that lots of people also want to dial into. We often have a separate view-only stream for those cases.
      - kyrra 13y ago
        Webex and GoToMeeting handle all-hands type meetings by making it only a 1-way presentation (view-only as you said). Participants can only ask questions via a chat dialog. The nice thing is, it prevent stupid feedback loops you always get when someone forgets to mute themselves. Though, I believe both Webex and GoToMeeting charge extra to have this ability.
moskie 13y ago
Hopefully this price point and target audience is just the beginning (a la Tesla?). I'd love for it to be simpler for me to arrange Hangouts in my living room, and for now I deal with doing it through an HTPC.... but I'm absolutely not interested in paying what they're charging here. So I hope eventually they introduce a cheaper consumer targeted device. (edit: here's hoping the next Chromecast has a way to hook up a webcam...)
- bla2 13y ago
  It definitely looks like this is "enterprise pricing" at the moment (there's a "contact sales" instead of a "buy" button and all), and for that it seems pretty cheap.
- aiiane 13y ago
  Regarding your desire for the Chromecast to have a webcam hookup - one factor that might play into why it doesn't is that in general encoding video is somewhat more computationally expensive than decoding it.
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    Just have an ASIC do it. No need for a general purpose processor.
    - Groxx 13y ago
      Especially since they probably already have a hardware h264 decoder, which is part of the reason decoding is so much faster.
Touche 13y ago
Really wish Hangouts would switch to WebRTC.
- troymc 13y ago
  Maybe it will once enough people have web browsers that support WebRTC.
  - aroch 13y ago
    Both Firefox and Chrome supports webRTC. Chrome however has an implementation that isn't fully RFC compliant making FF and Chrome cross-talk more difficult
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  They announced that this is planned the last time they did a big hangouts update. http://gigaom.com/2013/08/28/hangouts-hd-vp8-webrtc/ http://gigaom.com/2013/08/28/hangouts-hd-vp8-webrtc/ How does Hangouts work today on ChromeOS?
rubiquity 13y ago
So regular computers just can't cut the mustard at streaming video? I don't see the value in a custom hardware product for this and I can't quite justify the price tag. It's not often that Google creates a product where you say to yourself "Oh, I guess this just wasn't created for me" but I think this is one of those rare occasions. Disclaimer: I'm not a megacorp with millions to spend.
- aiiane 13y ago
  This is very much a business-focused product. (Also, really? You think AdWords and AdSense are created for the average consumer?)
  - rubiquity 13y ago
    I never said anything about the average consumer, I said "me" as in, well, me.
    - thedufer 13y ago
      You actually said "you", and extending that to "average person" is in no way a strange interpretation.
- rschmitty 13y ago
  This is just a convenience for not having to setup a computer for a group meeting with a group mic. Where did it say anything about regular computers not being enough? You can already do up to 15 people in hangouts http://www.webpronews.com/google-ups-the-hangout-limit-to-15-in-google-apps-2012-11 http://www.webpronews.com/google-ups-the-hangout-limit-to-15... This would go great in our office conference room if the price is right vs setting up someones MBP every time
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  Every company I've ever worked at (save one) had projectors in conference rooms, but no permanent computer hooked up to it. The meeting organizer would have to set up a web conference in something, and then people would share their Desktop, and whoever the presenter at the moment was would plug in their laptop. And then the guy forgot his power cord, and can't project for the whole meeting. And then the other guy forgot his Mac's VGA converter. And then some other guy has a Mac VGA converter, but it's the old one, not the new one. And then the guy's Windows box for some reason will not show video on the second monitor. And the file he needed was on his desktop, not his laptop, and does anyone have a USB key? And now Windows is rebooting and you can't turn off the power, because it's installing updates. I think a permanent ChromeOS-based computer plugged in to the projector makes a TON of sense. I've also drunk the Google Docs kool-aid, so YMMV. EDIT: Oh, and then because the projector was sharing his desktop, we get to see a ton of instant messages. Some of them from his wife. If instead you were doing a Hangout on a collaborative Google Doc, you wouldn't see that.
radicalbyte 13y ago
Chromebox for meetings.. have Google hired Microsoft's marketing department from 2005?
- ithkuil 13y ago
  What about "Chromebox for workgroups" ?
  - hexasquid 13y ago
    These days it's all about the Chromebox One.
joebo 13y ago
As a remote worker, I could see getting something like this for our central office. I need an almost frictionless solution and this sounds pretty close "walk into the room, click the remote once and you’re instantly in the meeting." My coworkers aren't interested in walking into a conference room with their laptop and sending a hangout. It would be useful if it supported multiple cameras somehow - which might break the hangout model. I want one pointed to the table and one pointed to the whiteboard.
- ghotli 13y ago
  A dead simple secondary whiteboard camera would be a killer feature in my opinion
- _delirium 13y ago
  It really does have to be nearly frictionless and continue to work, though. My coworkers and I mostly do walk into a conference room with our laptops and set up a Skype or Google Hangout, because nobody knows how to work the $$ Polycom videoconferencing system unless a guy from IT is present to set it up. It's also relatively easy to pull in a remote collaborator on a Google Hangout (even if they've never used it before, it's like 5 minutes to install), while I don't know if the Polycom setup even works when dialing out to a third party who doesn't have their setup. Since nearly every call involves at least one off-site collaborator, that really reduces the utility of a closed-circuit "enterprise" VC system to us if it can only dial sites that also have the same hardware (not sure if this is true, but that's the only case where I've seen it work).
- ben1040 13y ago
  My company has a system from Vidyo (who appears to have collaborated with Google on this, and whose technology apparently powers part of the Hangouts product in general). We've got a Mac Mini in every conference room, and every conference room represents a "room" in Vidyo. The whole thing is really frictionless. You open the app on your desktop, say you want to join the meeting in Room XYZ, and next thing you know you appear on the TV in there. Everyone also gets a personal "room" so if you're a remote worker and want to call a meeting with people in an office, you can just tell people in a physical conference room to join you by name. The desktop client is implemented in Flex so it's a little ugly, but still works pretty well. I've been doing several meetings a week over Vidyo for the last six months and it's been pretty seamless. It sounds like this is the same sort idea, except with Google Apps integration.
perlpimp 13y ago
if this is google hangouts implementation, I sure hope they have fixed the problem with autogain.when we used hangouts volume always crept up until feedback loop appeared, there is no way to turn it off in the settings. we switched to skype that handles this sort of thing well.
- aiiane 13y ago
  As someone who uses GVC (Google's internal version of this system), it's not an issue.
aiiane 13y ago
It's only mentioned briefly in the blog post, but one of the biggest wins with this system (and the aspect that I absolutely love when using it internally at Google) is the simplicity of screen sharing into a meeting. Anyone who wants to present can simply join the hangout from their laptop and then share their screen. Not only does it mean you don't have to fuss with cables/adapters (which can also break/wear out), it also means that if someone wants to share something while someone else is presenting, you don't have to disconnect and reconnect various computers; the other person just shares their screen as well (and/or the first temporarily stops sharing their screen). It also means you don't have to have dedicated rooms for presenters - someone in a remote office can present from their laptop to a meeting room elsewhere. Having a meeting that doesn't involve slides? The meeting organizer can just throw up the meeting agenda with a click or two - or if it's in something like a Google Doc, the meeting agenda can even be dynamic, with people adding topics they want to visit as they determine them, and the organizer simply working their way down the agenda as it grows. Add the agenda as an attachment to the google calendar entry for the meeting and people can review/add to the agenda ahead of time, and then look back at it after the meeting for a reminder of what was covered.
- bovermyer 13y ago
  See, that sounds awesome. However, my company uses Google Hangouts exclusively for our weekly business meeting (owing to everyone being remote), but we can't afford the price tag of the Chromebox. If there was a cheaper (order of magnitude cheaper) version, we'd be interested.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - thethimble 13y ago
    The Chromebox is significantly cheaper than other enterprise VC solutions ($10k+ with steep annual fees). For those customers, I think the Chromebox is really compelling as it is a much better user experience.
  - mjmahone17 13y ago
erva 13y ago
> Need to meet with a customer who doesn’t use Chromebox for meetings? That’s easy too—all they need is a Gmail account. This would be amazing, except no partner or customer our company works with has a gmail account. I have used quite a few different solutions, and while none of them wow me, the one thing all of them did was work for everyone. For this to become a viable solution for this market it will need to include non-gmail users.
- taopao 13y ago
  Like accepting a shared password?
  - erva 13y ago
    That seems to be the easiest scheme to implement. Most other systems will spin up a unique hyperlink and a require a passcode. By building in something that simple, Google could really have a winner on their hands with this.
- smm2000 13y ago
  I have gmail personal gmail account but I will absolutely not use it for business purposes. It's just unprofessional to ask everyone to log in into gmail.
  - wj 13y ago
    It is any different than asking everybody to log in to Skype? It is definitely preferable to asking somebody to drop tens or hundreds of thousands on other enterprise virtual conferencing solutions.
rch 13y ago
I like that it comes with an integrated camera, but I would like to be able to use an existing A/V systems as well. I've been in meeting rooms that already have a camera in every corner, plus one in front on an actuated gimbal. Leveraging that existing hardware would make a lot of sense.
michaelbuckbee 13y ago
I assure you that this is not a joke. The best 'self-contained' video conference machine I've used in the last year is: 1. $400 less up front than the Chromebox 2. Has an annual service fee $200 less than the Chromebox 3. Has a camera with awesome built in face detection (if one person is in the room it centers on their face, if three people are in it automatically expands to fit them all in, if you wander around the room it follows + refocuses on your face). 4. Is voice controlled. 5. Plays Lego Marvel Superheroes at 1080p. The XBox One and their Skype integration is really well thought out and solves most of the annoyances surrounding video conferencing, focal length, bad speakerphone mics, etc. highly recommended.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  It sounds to me like this one is designed to work from conference room to conference room, rather than requiring a connection from one user to another user. It's a fine point, but it might matter to some users. Also, for collaborative document editing, I think Hangouts are going to win, hands-down.
- dmdeller 13y ago
  Minor point, but note that video with >2 people on Skype requires a premium account ($10/month). I'm not sure if you also need a subscription to Xbox Live ($50/year/Xbox).
  - coverband 13y ago
    Sure, but Chromebox requires $20.83/month for its service, and with Skype, you have the option of buying a day-pass for $4.99 if you only use the service occasionally.
    - nevi-me 13y ago
      sure, but even without Chromebox, Hangouts is still a pretty good offer. A few friends and I are working abroad (in the US, Canada and UK), and we keep in touch at scheduled times on Hangouts. Chromebox is not really meant for individual consumers, but Skype's proposition also loses out to Hangouts there when I need to have credits or a premium account to talk to more than one person. Of course, it's also a matter of business models and how each company earns its revenue. However as the end user, "free" is better than $x/month
dangerboysteve 13y ago
Tell you what google, why don't you the service for few years before I sign up to make sure you want to keep the offering.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  You're an idiot, but Google switched to this years ago. There must be 10,000 of these things in total at Google offices.
mortenjorck 13y ago
Serious question, given that this solution appears to be: 1) based around Google Hangouts, and 2) targeted at enterprise customers: Does using it require Google Plus?
- bovermyer 13y ago
  It looks like you can access it via UberConference or Vidyo, but a Gmail account is strongly encouraged.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  Exactly my question. I could do away with some awful solutions, but I don't want to merely switch to different awful problems.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    My company has been using Google Apps for a while, uses Hangouts for videoconferencing, and the worst problem I've had is getting (1) a reminder to add a profile picture and (2) a pointless "What's Hot" email. So not really sure what awful problems you expect to pick up.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - scott_karana 13y ago
      Well, we already have all the SSO and authentication that we need in our current setup, so having to overlay another set of credentials could be a humongous hassle, especially since the people using the conference rooms are very non-technical. I love Google Apps, don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't be fitting in my current environment. :-) (We might just be able to set up "dummy" accounts that nobody ever notices or deals with directly; still very intrigued by this)
      - tedchs 13y ago
        Are you worried about employee having a second password for Google Apps? There is SAML integration available to enable SSO.
blcArmadillo 13y ago
Anyone else notice that the remote for this thing is almost identical to the boxee box remote?
- mlni 13y ago
  Also, the speaker looks pretty much like Jabra Speak 410. And the camera looks like a Logitech fullhd webcam without Logitech logos. Which are all admittedly excellent products for doing video meetings.
bluedino 13y ago
I wonder how well this works over T1's. We have 5 offices that this would work great for, and would be far, far less than the $10k/site we paid for LifeSize video conference systems (excellent, by the way) at the last place I worked.
- wmf 13y ago
  I'm surprised anyone is still using (only) T1s; business cable is a much better deal.
  - bluedino 13y ago
    Can't get cable in many locations, and cable often isn't as reliable.
    - fpgeek 13y ago
      I remember trying to replace a T1 with Comcast Business Cable. It was faster in the office, but variable latency, dropped packets, less usable remote access (just ssh and scp) and more frequent maintenance outages killed it. IIRC, SDSL turned out to be the better answer (and we really, really wanted to try FiOS, but they didn't support our building).
      - wmf 13y ago
        Has anyone tried some kind of bonding between the T1 and cable? A reliable but slow connection and a fast but variable connection seem like they could be much cheaper than a fast and reliable connection.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  If you have a real T-1 you're probably still better off with a tandberg. They work fine over ISDN, even.
ebcase 13y ago
We've cobbled together a rough equivalent of this at work, using a Mac Mini + Hangouts, a Logitech video camera, a wall-mounted flatscreen, and a USB speakerphone. The pieces all work as expected, but it's clunky and needs to be better integrated. For example, someone will change the Mac's sound IO for whatever reason, then the Hangout audio IO will change and someone else won't realize this (e.g. sound comes out of the Mini speaker in the closet, instead of the speakerphone). So a few mins at the start of every few meetings is spent debugging these things. The holy grail everyone wants is, "walk into the room, and it just does the right thing." This looks like a step in that direction from our current setup.
- jdonagher 13y ago
  This device addresses a lot of those issues. Walk into the room; joining the hangout booked for this meeting just requires a single button press. The Chromebox is bound to a room (GApps resource) so it is aware of which meetings start when, and shows this to you on the screen. Also, the Mac Mini solution involves creating named GApps accounts, and inevitably those sessions time out or people log them out. These devices also solve that problem (they are 'bound' to your GApps domain), which for a company with more than a few conference rooms can get really old.
npongratz 13y ago
My employer received a number of pre-release units for testing and feedback. One of my coworkers reviewed it here: http://blog.cdw.com/hands-on-with-googles-new-chromebox-for-meetings http://blog.cdw.com/hands-on-with-googles-new-chromebox-for-... Edit: HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192940
higherpurpose 13y ago
Does that thing really need a Core i7 processor? (which probably represents half of the component costs)
- zhengyi13 13y ago
  Up to 15 simultaneous HD streams? Yes.
skyjedi 13y ago
Just the next step. First Google offers a cheaper Office solution. Schools, Government, and Businesses fall over themselves to switch. A cheaper, more feature filled, Video Conference solution is just the natural progression.
pearjuice 13y ago
Got to love the ash tray on the table in that picture. Ironic, isn't it? https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uD5BuNqI4DA/UvOpyapQheI/AAAAAAAAAOs/NZmVWWW-HDM/s1600/lifestyle_chromemeeting_wireless_CBadd.png https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uD5BuNqI4DA/UvOpyapQheI/AAAAAAAAAOs/N...
- jccalhoun 13y ago
  http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_SPEAK__410_Series/Jabra_SPEAK_410 http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_SPEAK__410_S...
etler 13y ago
I was wondering where is all the money was going. It's clearly the newly announced Asus Chromebox, which starts at $179[1]. I haven't seen the high end price, but according to the spec sheet[2], the only difference is the CPU. The price difference here is $820. I couldn't imagine the cost difference between a celeron and a mid-range i7 to be much more than $300. That same camera is $75 on amazon, and a similar looking speaker is $90, and I don't imagine a RF remote is more than $15. That gets us to about $600, and leaves $220 for the management and support fee. So the hardware cost checks out, but the question is if their support and software is worth $250 a year. They don't do a good job explaining what goes into that though. Is the software a proprietary version of Chrome OS? Do you get to use priority servers instead of the normal hangout ones? Does that support fee cover all your chromeboxes, or is that per box? I feel a lot of the value proposition isn't being well explained. If it's amazing quality, and a great meeting experience, it can easily be worth it, but I'm not getting the sense of how the experience is better than if you bought the components yourself. A promo video demo would help. [1]http://promos.asus.com/us/chrome-os/chromebox/ http://promos.asus.com/us/chrome-os/chromebox/ [2]http://www.asus.com/us/News/xjbJtLA1HEyUSUeo http://www.asus.com/us/News/xjbJtLA1HEyUSUeo [3]http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Widescreen-Calling-Recording/dp/B006JH8T3S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391721781&sr=8-1&keywords=hd+camera http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Widescreen-Calling-Rec... [4]http://www.amazon.com/Jabra-SPEAK-510-Bluetooth-Softphone/dp/B00AQUO5RI/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1391721826&sr=8-10&keywords=conference+microphone+speaker http://www.amazon.com/Jabra-SPEAK-510-Bluetooth-Softphone/dp...
- will_work4tears 13y ago
  Hopefully the 250 a month includes a customer support phone line or at least a chat room. Might be almost worth getting one of these just for that. Google isn't known for it's customer support.
  - moreati 13y ago
    $250 per year, not per month.
    - 13y ago
kasperset 13y ago
How does it compare to Blue Jeans? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jeans_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jeans_Network
skywhopper 13y ago
While this sounds interesting, it seems like a major branding error. Why mix "Chrome" with a meeting-room appliance? Extending the Chrome brand to a browser-UI-based OS makes sense, since your interaction with the OS is basically using the browser. But this...
- bergie 13y ago
  It runs on a Chromebox
russell_h 13y ago
This looks awesome, we use Google+ Hangouts a lot around our office because the "real" VC solution we have barely works. Anyone know if this thing has to be logged into a Google account, or does it get its own address of some sort? Also, is it possible to have a call between two of these devices?
wil421 13y ago
What would convince an organization to switch for something like Cisco's webex? $999 seems like a lot when I can just use my current laptop with a VGA/HDMI cable plugged into the TV and then share over webex. And I am not really sure about using hangouts. For video conferencing the price is probably a steal over what the cisco telepresence costs.
- locustreign 13y ago
  Depending on your flavor of WebEx, the cost is roughly $100/mo. After one year you are a bit ahead with the Chromebox (~$1200/WebEx vs $1000/Chromebox) but I totally agree with your questioning of hangouts as a proven tool in an enterprise environment. Dedicated Cisco telepresence is in the magnitude of $15k to $150k depending on the feature set.
  - jdonagher 13y ago
    Webex is more suitable for outside sales calls or running through decks. We've found this unit excellent for team meetings or coworking with remote team members (we were part of the pilot). The audio and video quality is very good, and unlike with Skype, the meeting is just a simple URL you follow to join; distributed in the Calendar event. You can also bookmark named hangouts; for example if you have a 1:1 with a remote coworker every day. Or, I dunno, if you wanted to hold regular office hours - you could have essentially a static hangout that you use for an hour or two every day. Google is really trying to make Hangouts a solid videoconferencing tool, and for companies already using Google Apps, this is an incredibly valuable addition.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
AjithAntony 13y ago
FWIW, The target audience may already be the types who pay for "Chromebooks for Business": Management console & support: $150
cromwellian 13y ago
Google has an internal version of this called GVC and it is hands down better than any other system I've used. The interface is easy and intuitive to use, and being able to screenshare/present is as simple as visiting a URL. No installation of anything needed on the part of attendees. Hangouts also allows widespread distribution, so for example, with the GWT team's weekly meetings, we have sometimes recorded them, or broadcast them live, and even invited external participants to watch and field questions. You can also do things like run Hangouts Apps (Web Version), that lets people collaborate on documents while having the meeting. We do this with design docs or spreadsheets used for planning so that everyone on the video can edit what we are all watching get presented. Those complaining about the price are speaking from the standpoint of consumers. For someone running a non-trivial business, paying $1000 to get customer support is worth the trouble. If Google weren't making any margin on this, then you'd have to worry about it going away at some point. If you want a healthy assurance that it's going to stick around, pay b2b rates.
- eitally 13y ago
  The major sticking point for most companies are 1) they don't currently use Google Apps, and 2) they don't want to allow employees to use any part of G+ except Hangouts.
- mikecb 13y ago
  The live broadcasts, is that like private Hangouts on Air? I know some people who would like to do private HoAs. Currently they do them and then delete the public posts that are generated.
eitally 13y ago
For a lot of companies, the biggest benefit here will be having a cheap computer already in the meeting rooms that facilitates wireless screen sharing for any users with any kind of device that can use Hangouts. Compare that to traditional hardware-based VC and the amount of friction this eliminates, especially for non-technical users, is enormous.
pinaceae 13y ago
haha. http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/HP-Chromebox-Chrome-simplicity-tiny-desktop/ba-p/87295#.UvQs2V4d3Jg http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/HP-Chromebo... HP just released a Chrome OS device, the HP Chromebox. I wonder who will now change the naming...
- McGlockenshire 13y ago
  All of the Chromeboxes - the Samsung first, then the Asus now - have been called "Chromebox" in the same way that all of the Chromebooks have been called "Chromebook."
m0dest 13y ago
The remote looks an awful lot like the Boxee remote (RF). Chromebox for meetings: http://blog.cdw.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3940_copy-markup-1024x596.jpg http://blog.cdw.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3940_copy-markup-... Boxee remote: http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/dlink_boxee_dsm_22_remote_news.jpg http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/dlink_boxee_dsm_22_...
moca 13y ago
For those people who complain about $250 annual fee, just think about how much a plain old phone line would cost. Regarding the $750 hardware cost, if you build 15-way video conference system and sell it with $200 operating margin and one year hardware warranty, good luck if you can hit $750 price point. The price will surely go down over time, but it is way cheaper than anything else on the market.
cnaut 13y ago
Google is eating Microsoft's lunch
Zenst 13y ago
I read this and remember back in the late 90's when Videoconferenceing was moving away from expensive ISDN lines into the internet and thoughts of H.320 and respective document sharing (slides as this does) add-ons and extensions gave a usable platform albeit not cheap. That changes, video compression and codec onto chips came to market and got cheaper and cheaper. Now some 15 years later after many flavours, Google now offer the option but not just a feature push, but on a slow, methodical gradual feature addition which has seen the progress from VOIP/IM chat into video, into group video into a public contact phone book (aka Google+) of today. Then into a rebrand and now just polishing to the lowest common denominator of user in userbility (I personaly prefered ealier Gmail and chat clients, but that's me and other quirky geeks I suspect). So why is this big or important more too the point. Well If you view ChromeOS and its features to a modern revamp of the `dumb` terminal (that were not that dumb and could do Various terminal standards and on mainframes even form validation for numeric and alpha feilds and size of input back in the 80's. Now duringt he 80's a company called SInclair released there next ZX Spectrum replacement which ICL modified and released the OPD (One Per Desk). This was featurewise in mahy respects what a user today wants in a terminal, even had phone built in, though no video back in the 300baud data days. So too me I see ChromeOS and the slow but sure feature set grow, as the new terminal for the cloud - aka cluster/distributed mainframes we use thesedays. After all everything goes in circles, even technology approach. I know people can and do view webbrowsers as the terminal of our times and yes, many would be right, but if you step back a level you would want something with a little more, though not much more and a good interface and mobiles have opened up the whole touch-screen interfacing (was around in the 80's, just not as cheap and usable) and for many tasks, work very well. But bigger screens always will help upto a point and a real keyboard (although still stuck in a layout that seems like forcing some backwards outdated layout onto new people and children even today, think keyboard-religion). It is with that all in mind for me that make ChromeOS seems like the `dumb` terminal of our times and remember `dumb` terminals are never dumb. Now when you can add via a MCU/bridge external VC setups and studios into a hangout is when Google will be truely and finaly solidifying a technology that serves our times and needs and if anything else. Least help stop the UN and other World leaders flying around the World to lecture us mear peons why the climate is in a mess and how we should do our part about carbon emisions, whilst they then fly to the poles for photo shoots to add onto there stories of why climate change is happening. That is what Videoconferencing can truely offer and can, but its main issue has always been taking it serious compared to a jolly/plane flight/travel for so many mentality wise, again think the same mentalities that give us QWERTY keyboard-religions. One day, but after over 15 years I hope this keeps the momentum and slow but sure approach google has taken so far into Videoconferencing/VOIP. Until then we will always have `dumb` terminals and mainframes be they touchscreen clients or clustered machines called a cloud.
rocky5 13y ago
Is it available only in U.S ?
hrjet 13y ago
If something is very cheap and provided by a company focused on advertisements based on user data, I am going to be skeptical. What's in it for Google?
fizzbar 13y ago
Huh. Can anyone think of why this isn't going to totally dominate the videoconference space in a few years? Cheaper + works better == huge win, no?

259 points by slb 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

akama 13y ago

If this is comparable to the Chromecast in terms of ease of use and simplicity while still being able to be a functional product with the features companies need, I could see this being very popular. I love how simple the Chromecast is, it allows everybody to work it with no hassle. I hope this product also accomplishes that goal.

VikingCoder 13y ago

I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me? I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?

bryanlarsen 13y ago
The competition for this product (Cisco, Magor, etc) can easily run into 6 figures. Think of it as Google charging $500 for the software & configuration in addition to the $250/year. Would you rather they made their money by showing ads during your conference?
- incision 13y ago
  Precisely. $250/yr. isn't even pocket change - it's lint relative to the price of a Tandberg set up.
aiiane 13y ago
The $250/year is for support and maintenance.
9to5Seth 13y ago
Let's go shopping, shall we? I recognize that Camera as a Logitech ($90) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B00ATTIPZO&adid=1NNSTPRYJANG77ZD3DP9& https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0... and that mic is a Jabra Speak 410 ($85) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393185&creativeASIN=B004ELA7TA&linkCode=shr&tag=thepartim-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213... And that remote looks like the one that comes with a Google TV ($40). We know the ASUS Box starts at under $200. I'll cut you a deal and sell it to you for $500?
- telcodud 13y ago
  Not the Asus Chromebox that uses Intel Core i7.
  - nly 13y ago
    I can't fathom why this thing even needs such a high power CPU. Presumably it's running Android, so why not go with ARM + a nice video coprocessor to handle video?
- sandyarmstrong 13y ago
  The i7 version will be more than $200, too.
nairteashop 13y ago
I agree. I don't get what "support and maintenance" means. I currently have a set-top box (Apple TV), webcam, HD camera and speakers, and don't pay a yearly "maintenance" for any of them. Why would running a teleconferencing software on such a setup cost $250/year? The only motivation I can see is: "well the competition charges a hefty recurring fee, so why shouldn't we", but then the competition isn't doing all that well for this reason. I see a lot of resemblance to Cisco's "Umi" product, which had a $25/mo fee as well, and was a total flop.
- aiiane 13y ago
  You don't pay a yearly maintenance for any of them because if they break, you're going to have to fix them yourself. Most companies prefer to actually have a support plan, because if they don't, the alternative is to pay their own people to fix them, and it's usually cheaper to not pay someone full-time to have expertise in that area. This is a business-focused product offering.
  - nairteashop 13y ago
    We had hundreds of expensive Macs at my last gig. Guess how many of those we bought AppleCare for? Zero. This was also true of pretty much every piece of electronic equipment we owned. Note that this isn't very unusual either at most companies. Given the low failure rate of most electronics, it is simply cheaper for the business/IT team to buy a replacement Mac / router / whatever than to pay any kind of yearly maintenance fee, which is always designed to make more money for the vendor. $250/year for a $999 piece of equipment is not a good deal. If it were an option, like AppleCare, most would advise you to not take it.
    - aiiane 13y ago
      It's not just hardware support, though - it's service support. Unlike a Macbook, which doesn't rely on Apple services to function, this system is built on top of the Hangouts service.
    - nly 13y ago
taopao 13y ago
The BT phone bridges that sales and marketing seem to enjoy so much (whyyyyy) are a recurring cost that dwarfs this outlay.
carioca3 13y ago
I don't think HN is the target audience for this product. Many of us can roll out our own cheaper solution. This is targeted towards the non tech-savvy managers that want a cheaper video conference solution. The 250 dollar a year fee is tiny for a large company but large enough to prevent home users from adopting it.

rayshan 13y ago

This is really cool, unlike other enterprise teleconference vendors, this is single fee up-front and free ongoing. Can you chromecast to a chromebox? If so this can replace the crap load of Apple TVs we have at work, great for the 1/2 of folks that're on Thinkpads. edit: missed "includes first year's $250 management & support fee"

spankalee 13y ago
You can do better than Chromecast with the Chromebox setup, you can share your screen, window, or document, into the hangout so that all participants can see it. You can do this now with Hangouts, you don't need the Chromebox. We use this at Google for all of our video conferencing, and have for years. It's very well battle tested. Edit: It looks like there's a $250/year fee per Chromebox. I'm not sure if that's good or bad compared to other vendors. You can connect from your computer or phone for free though.
dmdeller 13y ago
Not free ongoing. > Chromebox, plus everything you need for video meetings. Starting at $999. > includes first year's $250 management & support fee source: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for-meetings.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for...
markhelo 13y ago
Thought it said 250 per year after first year.
btgeekboy 13y ago
Assuming your Thinkpad-toting friends are running Windows... http://www.airsquirrels.com/airparrot/ http://www.airsquirrels.com/airparrot/

fidotron 13y ago

Great, but any company big enough to be in the market for this should probably not be using Hangouts to hold meetings in.

nkozyra 13y ago
because ... ?
- ocfx 13y ago
  Can't you only have like 8 people in the meeting or something?
  - rory096 13y ago
    > Join meetings with up to 15 participants https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for-meetings.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/solutions/for...
  - azurezyq 13y ago
    that's 15 streams, e.g, 15 meeting rooms
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - spankalee 13y ago
    It says 15. We've only hit this limit with very large all-hands meetings or presentations that lots of people also want to dial into. We often have a separate view-only stream for those cases.
    - kyrra 13y ago
      Webex and GoToMeeting handle all-hands type meetings by making it only a 1-way presentation (view-only as you said). Participants can only ask questions via a chat dialog. The nice thing is, it prevent stupid feedback loops you always get when someone forgets to mute themselves. Though, I believe both Webex and GoToMeeting charge extra to have this ability.

moskie 13y ago

Hopefully this price point and target audience is just the beginning (a la Tesla?). I'd love for it to be simpler for me to arrange Hangouts in my living room, and for now I deal with doing it through an HTPC.... but I'm absolutely not interested in paying what they're charging here. So I hope eventually they introduce a cheaper consumer targeted device. (edit: here's hoping the next Chromecast has a way to hook up a webcam...)

bla2 13y ago
It definitely looks like this is "enterprise pricing" at the moment (there's a "contact sales" instead of a "buy" button and all), and for that it seems pretty cheap.
aiiane 13y ago
Regarding your desire for the Chromecast to have a webcam hookup - one factor that might play into why it doesn't is that in general encoding video is somewhat more computationally expensive than decoding it.
- colechristensen 13y ago
  Just have an ASIC do it. No need for a general purpose processor.
  - Groxx 13y ago
    Especially since they probably already have a hardware h264 decoder, which is part of the reason decoding is so much faster.

Touche 13y ago

Really wish Hangouts would switch to WebRTC.

troymc 13y ago
Maybe it will once enough people have web browsers that support WebRTC.
- aroch 13y ago
  Both Firefox and Chrome supports webRTC. Chrome however has an implementation that isn't fully RFC compliant making FF and Chrome cross-talk more difficult
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
They announced that this is planned the last time they did a big hangouts update. http://gigaom.com/2013/08/28/hangouts-hd-vp8-webrtc/ http://gigaom.com/2013/08/28/hangouts-hd-vp8-webrtc/ How does Hangouts work today on ChromeOS?

rubiquity 13y ago

So regular computers just can't cut the mustard at streaming video? I don't see the value in a custom hardware product for this and I can't quite justify the price tag. It's not often that Google creates a product where you say to yourself "Oh, I guess this just wasn't created for me" but I think this is one of those rare occasions. Disclaimer: I'm not a megacorp with millions to spend.

aiiane 13y ago
This is very much a business-focused product. (Also, really? You think AdWords and AdSense are created for the average consumer?)
- rubiquity 13y ago
  I never said anything about the average consumer, I said "me" as in, well, me.
  - thedufer 13y ago
    You actually said "you", and extending that to "average person" is in no way a strange interpretation.
rschmitty 13y ago
This is just a convenience for not having to setup a computer for a group meeting with a group mic. Where did it say anything about regular computers not being enough? You can already do up to 15 people in hangouts http://www.webpronews.com/google-ups-the-hangout-limit-to-15-in-google-apps-2012-11 http://www.webpronews.com/google-ups-the-hangout-limit-to-15... This would go great in our office conference room if the price is right vs setting up someones MBP every time
VikingCoder 13y ago
Every company I've ever worked at (save one) had projectors in conference rooms, but no permanent computer hooked up to it. The meeting organizer would have to set up a web conference in something, and then people would share their Desktop, and whoever the presenter at the moment was would plug in their laptop. And then the guy forgot his power cord, and can't project for the whole meeting. And then the other guy forgot his Mac's VGA converter. And then some other guy has a Mac VGA converter, but it's the old one, not the new one. And then the guy's Windows box for some reason will not show video on the second monitor. And the file he needed was on his desktop, not his laptop, and does anyone have a USB key? And now Windows is rebooting and you can't turn off the power, because it's installing updates. I think a permanent ChromeOS-based computer plugged in to the projector makes a TON of sense. I've also drunk the Google Docs kool-aid, so YMMV. EDIT: Oh, and then because the projector was sharing his desktop, we get to see a ton of instant messages. Some of them from his wife. If instead you were doing a Hangout on a collaborative Google Doc, you wouldn't see that.

radicalbyte 13y ago

Chromebox for meetings.. have Google hired Microsoft's marketing department from 2005?

ithkuil 13y ago
What about "Chromebox for workgroups" ?
- hexasquid 13y ago
  These days it's all about the Chromebox One.

joebo 13y ago

As a remote worker, I could see getting something like this for our central office. I need an almost frictionless solution and this sounds pretty close "walk into the room, click the remote once and you’re instantly in the meeting." My coworkers aren't interested in walking into a conference room with their laptop and sending a hangout. It would be useful if it supported multiple cameras somehow - which might break the hangout model. I want one pointed to the table and one pointed to the whiteboard.

ghotli 13y ago
A dead simple secondary whiteboard camera would be a killer feature in my opinion
_delirium 13y ago
It really does have to be nearly frictionless and continue to work, though. My coworkers and I mostly do walk into a conference room with our laptops and set up a Skype or Google Hangout, because nobody knows how to work the $$ Polycom videoconferencing system unless a guy from IT is present to set it up. It's also relatively easy to pull in a remote collaborator on a Google Hangout (even if they've never used it before, it's like 5 minutes to install), while I don't know if the Polycom setup even works when dialing out to a third party who doesn't have their setup. Since nearly every call involves at least one off-site collaborator, that really reduces the utility of a closed-circuit "enterprise" VC system to us if it can only dial sites that also have the same hardware (not sure if this is true, but that's the only case where I've seen it work).
ben1040 13y ago
My company has a system from Vidyo (who appears to have collaborated with Google on this, and whose technology apparently powers part of the Hangouts product in general). We've got a Mac Mini in every conference room, and every conference room represents a "room" in Vidyo. The whole thing is really frictionless. You open the app on your desktop, say you want to join the meeting in Room XYZ, and next thing you know you appear on the TV in there. Everyone also gets a personal "room" so if you're a remote worker and want to call a meeting with people in an office, you can just tell people in a physical conference room to join you by name. The desktop client is implemented in Flex so it's a little ugly, but still works pretty well. I've been doing several meetings a week over Vidyo for the last six months and it's been pretty seamless. It sounds like this is the same sort idea, except with Google Apps integration.

perlpimp 13y ago

if this is google hangouts implementation, I sure hope they have fixed the problem with autogain.when we used hangouts volume always crept up until feedback loop appeared, there is no way to turn it off in the settings. we switched to skype that handles this sort of thing well.

aiiane 13y ago
As someone who uses GVC (Google's internal version of this system), it's not an issue.

aiiane 13y ago

It's only mentioned briefly in the blog post, but one of the biggest wins with this system (and the aspect that I absolutely love when using it internally at Google) is the simplicity of screen sharing into a meeting. Anyone who wants to present can simply join the hangout from their laptop and then share their screen. Not only does it mean you don't have to fuss with cables/adapters (which can also break/wear out), it also means that if someone wants to share something while someone else is presenting, you don't have to disconnect and reconnect various computers; the other person just shares their screen as well (and/or the first temporarily stops sharing their screen). It also means you don't have to have dedicated rooms for presenters - someone in a remote office can present from their laptop to a meeting room elsewhere. Having a meeting that doesn't involve slides? The meeting organizer can just throw up the meeting agenda with a click or two - or if it's in something like a Google Doc, the meeting agenda can even be dynamic, with people adding topics they want to visit as they determine them, and the organizer simply working their way down the agenda as it grows. Add the agenda as an attachment to the google calendar entry for the meeting and people can review/add to the agenda ahead of time, and then look back at it after the meeting for a reminder of what was covered.

bovermyer 13y ago
See, that sounds awesome. However, my company uses Google Hangouts exclusively for our weekly business meeting (owing to everyone being remote), but we can't afford the price tag of the Chromebox. If there was a cheaper (order of magnitude cheaper) version, we'd be interested.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- thethimble 13y ago
  The Chromebox is significantly cheaper than other enterprise VC solutions ($10k+ with steep annual fees). For those customers, I think the Chromebox is really compelling as it is a much better user experience.
- mjmahone17 13y ago

erva 13y ago

> Need to meet with a customer who doesn’t use Chromebox for meetings? That’s easy too—all they need is a Gmail account. This would be amazing, except no partner or customer our company works with has a gmail account. I have used quite a few different solutions, and while none of them wow me, the one thing all of them did was work for everyone. For this to become a viable solution for this market it will need to include non-gmail users.

taopao 13y ago
Like accepting a shared password?
- erva 13y ago
  That seems to be the easiest scheme to implement. Most other systems will spin up a unique hyperlink and a require a passcode. By building in something that simple, Google could really have a winner on their hands with this.
smm2000 13y ago
I have gmail personal gmail account but I will absolutely not use it for business purposes. It's just unprofessional to ask everyone to log in into gmail.
- wj 13y ago
  It is any different than asking everybody to log in to Skype? It is definitely preferable to asking somebody to drop tens or hundreds of thousands on other enterprise virtual conferencing solutions.

rch 13y ago

I like that it comes with an integrated camera, but I would like to be able to use an existing A/V systems as well. I've been in meeting rooms that already have a camera in every corner, plus one in front on an actuated gimbal. Leveraging that existing hardware would make a lot of sense.

michaelbuckbee 13y ago

I assure you that this is not a joke. The best 'self-contained' video conference machine I've used in the last year is: 1. $400 less up front than the Chromebox 2. Has an annual service fee $200 less than the Chromebox 3. Has a camera with awesome built in face detection (if one person is in the room it centers on their face, if three people are in it automatically expands to fit them all in, if you wander around the room it follows + refocuses on your face). 4. Is voice controlled. 5. Plays Lego Marvel Superheroes at 1080p. The XBox One and their Skype integration is really well thought out and solves most of the annoyances surrounding video conferencing, focal length, bad speakerphone mics, etc. highly recommended.

VikingCoder 13y ago
It sounds to me like this one is designed to work from conference room to conference room, rather than requiring a connection from one user to another user. It's a fine point, but it might matter to some users. Also, for collaborative document editing, I think Hangouts are going to win, hands-down.
dmdeller 13y ago
Minor point, but note that video with >2 people on Skype requires a premium account ($10/month). I'm not sure if you also need a subscription to Xbox Live ($50/year/Xbox).
- coverband 13y ago
  Sure, but Chromebox requires $20.83/month for its service, and with Skype, you have the option of buying a day-pass for $4.99 if you only use the service occasionally.
  - nevi-me 13y ago
    sure, but even without Chromebox, Hangouts is still a pretty good offer. A few friends and I are working abroad (in the US, Canada and UK), and we keep in touch at scheduled times on Hangouts. Chromebox is not really meant for individual consumers, but Skype's proposition also loses out to Hangouts there when I need to have credits or a premium account to talk to more than one person. Of course, it's also a matter of business models and how each company earns its revenue. However as the end user, "free" is better than $x/month

dangerboysteve 13y ago

Tell you what google, why don't you the service for few years before I sign up to make sure you want to keep the offering.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
You're an idiot, but Google switched to this years ago. There must be 10,000 of these things in total at Google offices.

mortenjorck 13y ago

Serious question, given that this solution appears to be: 1) based around Google Hangouts, and 2) targeted at enterprise customers: Does using it require Google Plus?

bovermyer 13y ago
It looks like you can access it via UberConference or Vidyo, but a Gmail account is strongly encouraged.
scott_karana 13y ago
Exactly my question. I could do away with some awful solutions, but I don't want to merely switch to different awful problems.
- saraid216 13y ago
  My company has been using Google Apps for a while, uses Hangouts for videoconferencing, and the worst problem I've had is getting (1) a reminder to add a profile picture and (2) a pointless "What's Hot" email. So not really sure what awful problems you expect to pick up.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    Well, we already have all the SSO and authentication that we need in our current setup, so having to overlay another set of credentials could be a humongous hassle, especially since the people using the conference rooms are very non-technical. I love Google Apps, don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't be fitting in my current environment. :-) (We might just be able to set up "dummy" accounts that nobody ever notices or deals with directly; still very intrigued by this)
    - tedchs 13y ago
      Are you worried about employee having a second password for Google Apps? There is SAML integration available to enable SSO.

blcArmadillo 13y ago

Anyone else notice that the remote for this thing is almost identical to the boxee box remote?

mlni 13y ago
Also, the speaker looks pretty much like Jabra Speak 410. And the camera looks like a Logitech fullhd webcam without Logitech logos. Which are all admittedly excellent products for doing video meetings.

bluedino 13y ago

I wonder how well this works over T1's. We have 5 offices that this would work great for, and would be far, far less than the $10k/site we paid for LifeSize video conference systems (excellent, by the way) at the last place I worked.

wmf 13y ago
I'm surprised anyone is still using (only) T1s; business cable is a much better deal.
- bluedino 13y ago
  Can't get cable in many locations, and cable often isn't as reliable.
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    I remember trying to replace a T1 with Comcast Business Cable. It was faster in the office, but variable latency, dropped packets, less usable remote access (just ssh and scp) and more frequent maintenance outages killed it. IIRC, SDSL turned out to be the better answer (and we really, really wanted to try FiOS, but they didn't support our building).
    - wmf 13y ago
      Has anyone tried some kind of bonding between the T1 and cable? A reliable but slow connection and a fast but variable connection seem like they could be much cheaper than a fast and reliable connection.
thrownaway2424 13y ago
If you have a real T-1 you're probably still better off with a tandberg. They work fine over ISDN, even.

ebcase 13y ago

We've cobbled together a rough equivalent of this at work, using a Mac Mini + Hangouts, a Logitech video camera, a wall-mounted flatscreen, and a USB speakerphone. The pieces all work as expected, but it's clunky and needs to be better integrated. For example, someone will change the Mac's sound IO for whatever reason, then the Hangout audio IO will change and someone else won't realize this (e.g. sound comes out of the Mini speaker in the closet, instead of the speakerphone). So a few mins at the start of every few meetings is spent debugging these things. The holy grail everyone wants is, "walk into the room, and it just does the right thing." This looks like a step in that direction from our current setup.

jdonagher 13y ago
This device addresses a lot of those issues. Walk into the room; joining the hangout booked for this meeting just requires a single button press. The Chromebox is bound to a room (GApps resource) so it is aware of which meetings start when, and shows this to you on the screen. Also, the Mac Mini solution involves creating named GApps accounts, and inevitably those sessions time out or people log them out. These devices also solve that problem (they are 'bound' to your GApps domain), which for a company with more than a few conference rooms can get really old.

npongratz 13y ago

My employer received a number of pre-release units for testing and feedback. One of my coworkers reviewed it here: http://blog.cdw.com/hands-on-with-googles-new-chromebox-for-meetings http://blog.cdw.com/hands-on-with-googles-new-chromebox-for-... Edit: HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192940

higherpurpose 13y ago

Does that thing really need a Core i7 processor? (which probably represents half of the component costs)

zhengyi13 13y ago
Up to 15 simultaneous HD streams? Yes.

skyjedi 13y ago

Just the next step. First Google offers a cheaper Office solution. Schools, Government, and Businesses fall over themselves to switch. A cheaper, more feature filled, Video Conference solution is just the natural progression.

pearjuice 13y ago

Got to love the ash tray on the table in that picture. Ironic, isn't it? https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uD5BuNqI4DA/UvOpyapQheI/AAAAAAAAAOs/NZmVWWW-HDM/s1600/lifestyle_chromemeeting_wireless_CBadd.png https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uD5BuNqI4DA/UvOpyapQheI/AAAAAAAAAOs/N...

jccalhoun 13y ago
http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_SPEAK__410_Series/Jabra_SPEAK_410 http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_SPEAK__410_S...

etler 13y ago

I was wondering where is all the money was going. It's clearly the newly announced Asus Chromebox, which starts at $179[1]. I haven't seen the high end price, but according to the spec sheet[2], the only difference is the CPU. The price difference here is $820. I couldn't imagine the cost difference between a celeron and a mid-range i7 to be much more than $300. That same camera is $75 on amazon, and a similar looking speaker is $90, and I don't imagine a RF remote is more than $15. That gets us to about $600, and leaves $220 for the management and support fee. So the hardware cost checks out, but the question is if their support and software is worth $250 a year. They don't do a good job explaining what goes into that though. Is the software a proprietary version of Chrome OS? Do you get to use priority servers instead of the normal hangout ones? Does that support fee cover all your chromeboxes, or is that per box? I feel a lot of the value proposition isn't being well explained. If it's amazing quality, and a great meeting experience, it can easily be worth it, but I'm not getting the sense of how the experience is better than if you bought the components yourself. A promo video demo would help. [1]http://promos.asus.com/us/chrome-os/chromebox/ http://promos.asus.com/us/chrome-os/chromebox/ [2]http://www.asus.com/us/News/xjbJtLA1HEyUSUeo http://www.asus.com/us/News/xjbJtLA1HEyUSUeo [3]http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Widescreen-Calling-Recording/dp/B006JH8T3S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391721781&sr=8-1&keywords=hd+camera http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Widescreen-Calling-Rec... [4]http://www.amazon.com/Jabra-SPEAK-510-Bluetooth-Softphone/dp/B00AQUO5RI/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1391721826&sr=8-10&keywords=conference+microphone+speaker http://www.amazon.com/Jabra-SPEAK-510-Bluetooth-Softphone/dp...

will_work4tears 13y ago
Hopefully the 250 a month includes a customer support phone line or at least a chat room. Might be almost worth getting one of these just for that. Google isn't known for it's customer support.
- moreati 13y ago
  $250 per year, not per month.
  - 13y ago

kasperset 13y ago

How does it compare to Blue Jeans? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jeans_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jeans_Network

skywhopper 13y ago

While this sounds interesting, it seems like a major branding error. Why mix "Chrome" with a meeting-room appliance? Extending the Chrome brand to a browser-UI-based OS makes sense, since your interaction with the OS is basically using the browser. But this...

bergie 13y ago
It runs on a Chromebox

russell_h 13y ago

This looks awesome, we use Google+ Hangouts a lot around our office because the "real" VC solution we have barely works. Anyone know if this thing has to be logged into a Google account, or does it get its own address of some sort? Also, is it possible to have a call between two of these devices?

wil421 13y ago

What would convince an organization to switch for something like Cisco's webex? $999 seems like a lot when I can just use my current laptop with a VGA/HDMI cable plugged into the TV and then share over webex. And I am not really sure about using hangouts. For video conferencing the price is probably a steal over what the cisco telepresence costs.

locustreign 13y ago
Depending on your flavor of WebEx, the cost is roughly $100/mo. After one year you are a bit ahead with the Chromebox (~$1200/WebEx vs $1000/Chromebox) but I totally agree with your questioning of hangouts as a proven tool in an enterprise environment. Dedicated Cisco telepresence is in the magnitude of $15k to $150k depending on the feature set.
- jdonagher 13y ago
  Webex is more suitable for outside sales calls or running through decks. We've found this unit excellent for team meetings or coworking with remote team members (we were part of the pilot). The audio and video quality is very good, and unlike with Skype, the meeting is just a simple URL you follow to join; distributed in the Calendar event. You can also bookmark named hangouts; for example if you have a 1:1 with a remote coworker every day. Or, I dunno, if you wanted to hold regular office hours - you could have essentially a static hangout that you use for an hour or two every day. Google is really trying to make Hangouts a solid videoconferencing tool, and for companies already using Google Apps, this is an incredibly valuable addition.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

AjithAntony 13y ago

FWIW, The target audience may already be the types who pay for "Chromebooks for Business": Management console & support: $150

cromwellian 13y ago

Google has an internal version of this called GVC and it is hands down better than any other system I've used. The interface is easy and intuitive to use, and being able to screenshare/present is as simple as visiting a URL. No installation of anything needed on the part of attendees. Hangouts also allows widespread distribution, so for example, with the GWT team's weekly meetings, we have sometimes recorded them, or broadcast them live, and even invited external participants to watch and field questions. You can also do things like run Hangouts Apps (Web Version), that lets people collaborate on documents while having the meeting. We do this with design docs or spreadsheets used for planning so that everyone on the video can edit what we are all watching get presented. Those complaining about the price are speaking from the standpoint of consumers. For someone running a non-trivial business, paying $1000 to get customer support is worth the trouble. If Google weren't making any margin on this, then you'd have to worry about it going away at some point. If you want a healthy assurance that it's going to stick around, pay b2b rates.

eitally 13y ago
The major sticking point for most companies are 1) they don't currently use Google Apps, and 2) they don't want to allow employees to use any part of G+ except Hangouts.
mikecb 13y ago
The live broadcasts, is that like private Hangouts on Air? I know some people who would like to do private HoAs. Currently they do them and then delete the public posts that are generated.

eitally 13y ago

For a lot of companies, the biggest benefit here will be having a cheap computer already in the meeting rooms that facilitates wireless screen sharing for any users with any kind of device that can use Hangouts. Compare that to traditional hardware-based VC and the amount of friction this eliminates, especially for non-technical users, is enormous.

pinaceae 13y ago

haha. http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/HP-Chromebox-Chrome-simplicity-tiny-desktop/ba-p/87295#.UvQs2V4d3Jg http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/HP-Chromebo... HP just released a Chrome OS device, the HP Chromebox. I wonder who will now change the naming...

McGlockenshire 13y ago
All of the Chromeboxes - the Samsung first, then the Asus now - have been called "Chromebox" in the same way that all of the Chromebooks have been called "Chromebook."

m0dest 13y ago

The remote looks an awful lot like the Boxee remote (RF). Chromebox for meetings: http://blog.cdw.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3940_copy-markup-1024x596.jpg http://blog.cdw.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3940_copy-markup-... Boxee remote: http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/dlink_boxee_dsm_22_remote_news.jpg http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/dlink_boxee_dsm_22_...

moca 13y ago

For those people who complain about $250 annual fee, just think about how much a plain old phone line would cost. Regarding the $750 hardware cost, if you build 15-way video conference system and sell it with $200 operating margin and one year hardware warranty, good luck if you can hit $750 price point. The price will surely go down over time, but it is way cheaper than anything else on the market.

cnaut 13y ago

Google is eating Microsoft's lunch

Zenst 13y ago

I read this and remember back in the late 90's when Videoconferenceing was moving away from expensive ISDN lines into the internet and thoughts of H.320 and respective document sharing (slides as this does) add-ons and extensions gave a usable platform albeit not cheap. That changes, video compression and codec onto chips came to market and got cheaper and cheaper. Now some 15 years later after many flavours, Google now offer the option but not just a feature push, but on a slow, methodical gradual feature addition which has seen the progress from VOIP/IM chat into video, into group video into a public contact phone book (aka Google+) of today. Then into a rebrand and now just polishing to the lowest common denominator of user in userbility (I personaly prefered ealier Gmail and chat clients, but that's me and other quirky geeks I suspect). So why is this big or important more too the point. Well If you view ChromeOS and its features to a modern revamp of the `dumb` terminal (that were not that dumb and could do Various terminal standards and on mainframes even form validation for numeric and alpha feilds and size of input back in the 80's. Now duringt he 80's a company called SInclair released there next ZX Spectrum replacement which ICL modified and released the OPD (One Per Desk). This was featurewise in mahy respects what a user today wants in a terminal, even had phone built in, though no video back in the 300baud data days. So too me I see ChromeOS and the slow but sure feature set grow, as the new terminal for the cloud - aka cluster/distributed mainframes we use thesedays. After all everything goes in circles, even technology approach. I know people can and do view webbrowsers as the terminal of our times and yes, many would be right, but if you step back a level you would want something with a little more, though not much more and a good interface and mobiles have opened up the whole touch-screen interfacing (was around in the 80's, just not as cheap and usable) and for many tasks, work very well. But bigger screens always will help upto a point and a real keyboard (although still stuck in a layout that seems like forcing some backwards outdated layout onto new people and children even today, think keyboard-religion). It is with that all in mind for me that make ChromeOS seems like the `dumb` terminal of our times and remember `dumb` terminals are never dumb. Now when you can add via a MCU/bridge external VC setups and studios into a hangout is when Google will be truely and finaly solidifying a technology that serves our times and needs and if anything else. Least help stop the UN and other World leaders flying around the World to lecture us mear peons why the climate is in a mess and how we should do our part about carbon emisions, whilst they then fly to the poles for photo shoots to add onto there stories of why climate change is happening. That is what Videoconferencing can truely offer and can, but its main issue has always been taking it serious compared to a jolly/plane flight/travel for so many mentality wise, again think the same mentalities that give us QWERTY keyboard-religions. One day, but after over 15 years I hope this keeps the momentum and slow but sure approach google has taken so far into Videoconferencing/VOIP. Until then we will always have `dumb` terminals and mainframes be they touchscreen clients or clustered machines called a cloud.

rocky5 13y ago

Is it available only in U.S ?

hrjet 13y ago

If something is very cheap and provided by a company focused on advertisements based on user data, I am going to be skeptical. What's in it for Google?

fizzbar 13y ago

Huh. Can anyone think of why this isn't going to totally dominate the videoconference space in a few years? Cheaper + works better == huge win, no?