Tag Archives: Tandberg

Back to the enterprise

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

Cisco’s foray into the consumer market has proved too challenging for the networking giant. This morning, Cisco Systems announced that it would cut 550 jobs as part of its plan to exit some of its consumer business.

This includes closing the video recording device division which manufactures the once-great Flip cameras that recorded high-definition videos on the device which were easily transferred to the computer and easily shared on the internet. It seems that consumers are turning to their iPhone and Android smartphones for the video recording function rather than carrying a separate Flip device for this purpose.

The Flip video recording device (Source: CNET)

Cisco will also be shifting marketing priorities of the Umi home high-definition telepresence systems to the corporate segment where it is easier to market and charge for. It will be interesting for us in the video collaboration space to see how Cisco integrates the Umi into its existing business telepresence line while taking on the likes of Polycom and HP.

I think that the demise of Flip and the repositioning of the Umi are signs that people just don’t want an additional piece of hardware to do what their existing devices can do. In the case of the Flip, smartphones do a great job with video recording. And in the case of the Umi, software solutions like Skype and ours at VSee do a great job at offering high quality video calling without the need to invest in additional hardware. In fact, we offer free 720p HD video calling for personal users!

Alas, so long Flip, you were once great and glorious and you will be remembered.

Follow us on Twitter (@VSee) and Like us on Facebook to hear about the latest from VSee! By the way, we are hiring too.

Videoconferencing: The Kid On A Corner

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

With all the research and effort put into recreating Star Trek fantasies of communicating via life-like screen images, you’d think people would be more enthusiastic about actually using the amazing videoconferencing technologies out there today!  But surprisingly, as mentioned in an earlier post, videoconferencing tools have been painfully slow to gain popularity in the workplace.  Today, I’d like to take a closer look at some of those possible reasons.

Sociologists Allan and Thorns (2009) have done a nice job listing previous research investigating the problem.*  Some studies found that videoconferencing was seen as too inconvenient, expensive, unreliable, or unnecessary.  Other studies discussed the difficulties of reproducing contexts, social cues, social influences, and other important face-to-face interactions.  Still others examined the ways organizations convince people to use these media-rich technologies.

Given the wide range of possibilities, an interesting question to ask at this point might be:  Is this a problem of technology or a problem of human psychology?  Literature suggests that it’s probably a bit of both.  Allan and Thorns (2009) concluded Continue reading →

Got A Minute To Chat?

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

During my recent Singapore trip, while doing Vsee calls all day long, it was IM and Chatter that I depended on the most to keep in touch with my coworkers.  Those tools in addition to one-click video calling were critical for informal interactions–that is, for casual conversations.

By casual I mean short, unscheduled, and frequent, and by conversation I mean same time, same place, and face-to-face.  This can be anything from saying “hi” to a coworker on your way to the espresso machine to swinging by your manager’s office to double check a work order.

Many studies have documented the essential role of casual conversations in the workplace.  Whittaker et al. (1994) estimate that 25-70% of work time is spent in face-to-face interactions, of which 30% may consist of casual conversations.  These unplanned meetings are so critical that Continue reading →

What’s In A Face?

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

A voice without the face is still the same person…right?

Given that humans are highly visual creatures, and that a disproportionately large portion of the brain is devoted to processing images (Wolfe, 2001), it seems to make sense that including video in virtual conferences could dramatically improve communication between people.  Interestingly enough, not all studies support this idea (Inkpen, Hegde, Czerwinkski & Zhang, 2010) and in many work situations, people often prefer going without video (Hirsh & Brokopp, 2005).  Why this should be the case is a discussion we’ll have to save for later.  For now, we want to look at the reported benefits of including video.

According to a 2010 study of 3-way discussions via computer conferencing, participants perceived significant differences in discussions they had with and without video–with the majority of participants giving “with video” a big thumbs up (Inkpen et al).  Bear in mind that this means they had simultaneous video of the other two members of their discussion group, not just one person at a time, (some of the aforementioned studies of videoconferencing were set up so that meeting members only saw the presenting speaker, aka voice activated switching with is used by Microsoft Office Communicator and most hardware room systems such as Polycom and Tandberg).  So this is what participants had to say about the benefits of including video versus audio alone:

1.  “With video [it was] easier to stay engaged and track the conversation.” (97)
Save brain power to focus on *what* is being said instead of who’s saying it.

2.  “Having eye-contact and seeing other people’s emotions made a huge difference and enhanced the conversation” (97)
Building rapport through eye-contact has always been an important point, beginning with ancient Greek and Roman oratory.

3.  “Felt accountable for joining in” (97)
Make sure others are throwing their weight.

4.  “No video…[i]t’s easier to think that pauses in the conversation mean you are not being paid attention to or that someone disagrees” (98)
Prevent avoidable misunderstandings and conflicts (which saves time and emotional energy).

5.  “But I must admit that I had no email or web distractions.” (97)
Know that you’ve got the listener’s attention.

So a voice without a face  just  isn’t the same person–it’s less of the same person.  A face can be a significant source of information for better communication.

References:

Inkpen, K., Hegde, R., Czerwinski, M., Zhang, Z. (2010). Exploring spatialized audio & video for distributed conversations. Proceedings of CSCW 2010, Savannah, Georgia, 95-98.

Kirk, D., Sellen, A., Cao, X. (2010). Home video communication: mediating ‘closeness’. Proceedings of CSCW 2010, Savannah, Georgia, 135-144.

Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain Matters: Translating Research Into Classroom Practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Polycom Vaporware Announcement?

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

My friend Jeff Urdan, honcho of VeaMea (a friendly competitor of ours that uses a client-server architecture), sent me an interesting email yesterday with the title “A laugh for your blog?”  Apparently the big guys, realizing they’re a little behind in desktop videoconferencing innovation (read: not optimized for ad hoc workflow), are using the ‘ol “vaporware” approach to slow the startups down.  (Microsoft was king of that approach back in the day.  Guess who’s part of this?)

Jeff was kind enough to let me publish his email in Continue reading →