Recently in Video Applications Category

 It is about time we stop pretending as if video conferencing is here to replace face-to-face meetings. Or that it gives a "life-like" experience, which will surely make airline companies redundant. As Rich Tehrani reports from a recent Forbes survey:

... executives still expressed an overwhelming preference for face-to-face meetings, with more than eight out of ten (84%) saying they prefer in-person contact to virtual...

... face-to-face meetings are much better than meeting in any other way.

The thing that people mostly miss when they dismiss video conferencing as a means for better communications is that it isn't here to replace face-to-face meetings - it is here to improve communications when you can't meet face-to-face.

If the choice was flying twice a month to the other side of the globe for a 2-days synchronization meetings or conducting an hourly video conferencing call each day of the month - which one would you prefer?

For me it would be the video conferencing alternative, for sure. And I say it as someone who flies quite often.

I don't like flying. I don't like the wasted time that it involves. I don't like being away from home for too long. I don't like missing the smile of my baby girl every morning.

I prefer meeting face-to-face. Always. But without the traveling part that it requires.

So video conferencing is not a matter of what kind of communication type do you prefer. It's a matter of what other alternatives you really have.

I've been whining a bit about the lack of innovation in video conferencing in my RADVISION blog, and even took the time to suggest what the next innovation might be.

At the time of writing these posts, I haven't had the time to read Robert Cringely's post about the education system:

Education, which - along with health care - seems to exist in an alternate economic universe, ought to be subject to the same economic realities as anything else.  We should have a marketplace for insight.  Take a variety of experts (both professors and lay specialists) and make them available over the Internet by video conference.  Each expert charges by the minute with those charges adjusting over time until a real market value is reached.  The whole setup would run like iTunes and sessions would be recorded for later review.

And this is just a quote. You should definitely read the whole post, especially the beginning of it, which is rather amusing.

The thing is, that his post got me thinking:

What if the innovation in video conferencing should not be in the technology or the service, but rather in the applications that people use?

Cisco Telepresence used in a class (commercial)

Maybe it's time to start thinking about video conferencing infrastructure (endpoints, bridges) as vehicles or enablers for other industries. The technology is mature enough and solid enough to take the next step. It is time we stop selling it as "just" a communication means to enterprises. Video conferencing should be embedded in a lot more applications and verticals. Education is one such vertical; Health care is another one. But there are many others which can enjoy the benefits of video conferencing, if we would only take the time to integrate it properly and find the right use cases.

There are misconceptions about video conferencing, even today:

• I am in perpetual arguments with people who state that point-to-point video conferencing is useless and irrelevant. Not needed. Un-natural. Tell that to my mother who forced me years ago to purchase a webcam, just so she can speak with me on Skype. And I only live 30 minutes away.
• People argue that video conferencing isn't required to replace face-to-face calls, since HD Voice can replace it at lower costs. So how do you explain companies who use video conferencing on a daily basis for internal meetings between branch offices and swear they could never exist without it?
• Others say that video doesn't add anything on top of voice and that it even diminishes the communications experience. And still people, a lot of people, use video.

If we just provide video conferencing as a building block, instead of a whole service, we could let smart people like Robert Cringely find ways to use it,  let others mesh it up with other functionalities and use it as they like.

So is innovation necessary in video conferencing the building block or should it lay in the way people use it to build their own application logic around it?

Logitech just launched a new service called Vid.

Essentially, it's an application Logitech is supplying along with the webcams they usually sell. Why? To sell more webcams, of course.

Their selling point for the service is all about simplifying the complex offering out there, that requires installing applications and managing user accounts (think Skype, ooVoo, etc.).

So if Logitech doesn't require you to have a user account, how do you actually connect with the person you want to talk to? Well, the Logitech logic says by email address. Everyone has one. But it's not that simple. That person needs also to be a SightSpeed user (a company Logitech purchased a while back). To me this sounds like... another user account, in yet another social network/calling service. Of course, if the person you want to call isn't on SightSpeed, you can send him an invitation. How novel!

Liz Gannes from NeeTeeVee has an interesting point as to what Logitech is trying to achieve with this wait-they-seriously-didn't-have-this-already? service:

...Vid isn't measuring its success by wide appeal; rather, the service is meant to sell more webcams. Users who don't have a Logitech webcam - perhaps they're just using a built-in camera - or don't know someone who already uses the service (and can thus invite them) can only use it for a 30-day trial before buying a Logitech device of their own. There's not even an option to pay more to keep using Vid with another webcam.

My 5 cents?

• This service isn't going to work. It's relatively simple and easy to use, but so is the rest of the competition out there.
• This service isn't going to work. It's way easier to sign up for a "real" video calling service, such as Vidtel, and use a "real" device instead of mucking around with software apps and web cams.
• On a brighter note: visual communications is happening. Logitech's recent moves - the purchase of SightSpeed and now Vid - are just more signs for this shift in the market.

The visual communication industry has been asleep for a long time. Too long, or so I'd like to think. No great progress has been made.

We've been playing around with room systems, telepresence and other high-end devices, trying - as an industry - to push it as a replacement to flight tickets. Our industry has finally grown, but too slowly.

As the technologies have improved, it seems like the time has come for our industry to wake up and see what's going on in the consumer market of visual communications. Almost everyone  is using video.  It started by watching videos online, uploading them to UGC websites, such as YouTube or Flickr, and its exploded with everyone using Skype or Gtalk video calling.

But what about the B2B world? The place where visual communications started. But how many businesses can afford a 'personal' video system that starts at $5,000. Video calling is still a niche, adopted by early adopters and avid CEOs.  Well, all this is about to change. Dramatically.

We now have the capabilities necessary for HD visual communications to be on every employee's desktop - every employee of the enterprise. We are  tearing down the walls of the conferenceing rooms. That's why I believe these services are actually going to be used a lot more.

This has been a busy week for RADVISION and for the industry in general, with InfoComm 09 happening in Olrando. Stephen Lawson, from IDG, covered press releases issued by RADVISION (my company) and LifeSize this week, noting the different approaches we're taking in bringing video calling to the desktop:

LifeSize Communications and Radvision are taking two different routes toward high-definition desktop videoconferencing, both aiming to bring more participants into the virtual room.  [...]

The LifeSize Desktop application is designed for use on standard Windows XP and Vista systems, including laptops, particularly for employees who work at home or on the road. [...]

Radvision and Samsung bypassed the CPU power question altogether, while allowing users to integrate their desktop videoconferencing systems with their PCs physically. The VC240 is a 24-inch Samsung high-definition PC monitor with a built-in DSP (digital signal processor) for videoconferencing.

As a side note, I would add that RADVISION is actually offering both of the options that Stephen is discussing - offloading the video codec when working with the VC240, and using the PC CPU for the codec with our SCOPIA Desktop client.

Bottom line:

• Visual communication is booming both in the consumer market and in the enterprise because it is making it accessible two different target audiences. For consumers, that will mean having both software based solutions, that can be installed on personal computers, AND consumer electronic appliances, that can do video calls (standalone videophones, embedded in the television, or any other technique).
• For businesses, that will mean having both desktop solutions (in a form of LCD, a standalone videophone or a software application) AND dedicated room systems.

Last week I had an interesting conversation with a colleague of mine at work. It was around the chances of success for point-to-point video telephony.

Point-to-point video telephony means two people talking to each other using a video call. This is sometimes referred to as "talking heads", as what you usually see is a head talking.

As an application, "talking heads" hasn't proven itself useful enough. At least if you count mobile video telephony as the main application.

The reason usually cited for this flop is that people want to talk, and for them exchanging voices is enough. Adding video to the equation only confuses them and defocuses them.

Today even my mom uses video chatting through Skype to talk to her friends

In my office, Cisco VT Advantage is installed on all machines, so whenever I call someone at RADVISION, I automatically use a video call. It is a bit funny when you're talking to a person sitting a room away down the corridor, but when I call our Japan office, being able to see who I speak to adds some depth to the call that is otherwise unavailable.

People communicate. Before the phone, they used to talk face to face (think "talking heads", only from a short distance). We have meetings and we fly to meet people to negotiate deals. The added value of seeing who you talk to is precious.

So do we really need some killer application for video telephony or can the "talking heads" one be the application we're searching for? Is it only a matter of better processing power and more bandwidth or is it time to think of other use cases?