Why do iPads do so well despite being underpowered as computers?
Why does Netflix do so well regardless of only TV and movie media offerings?
Why do Kindles do so well when all they do is display and annotate books?
What these three things have in common is that they only do what they do well.
iPads are really multimedia content systems. They don’t need to be more powerful than a smart phone to do this well. Any other computing done on an iPad is at a level that does not require a full-fledged PC. Netfllix delivers a specific type of content. They’ve remained nimble in a changing market, not staying tied to a particular format (which hurt Blockbuster), but rather pursuing any means—physical, streaming, or whatever’s next—to accomplish the goal. Kindles don’t try to have movies run on them, nor spreadsheets. They display books…that’s it.
Microsoft is notorious for trying to pack entire desktop PCs into devices that aren’t (here’s a recent story on that from ZDnet). The complexity, power drain, and technical issues this creates has kept Microsoft from competing well in the tablet and mobile markets.
Now, let’s ask ourselves how this translates into video collaboration systems.
What sounds better to you:
1) A system costing tens of thousands per room that tries to do far more than is needed for successful collaboration and uses proprietary equipment. The complexity requires hours to set up each meeting which, even then, may not run smoothly.
2) A system costing 1/5th as much (or less), uses off-the-shelf equipment that connects via USB and can begin a collaboration session in a couple clicks of the mouse.
Obviously I’ve written this to push VSee, but the analogy works with nearly anything. Please consider these examples when planning your projects and designs.