I’m not kidding here. What is telepresence good for anyway?

And just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, here’s a reminder for one of my own definitions of telepresence: “The high end of the high end of video conferencing”.

Sagee had a more thoughtful definition of telepresence, which is two years old. And since we’re already delving into nostalgia, here’s another doozy from around the same time – Moz Hussain, director of product management at Microsoft estimating the size of the telepresence market:

“I just don’t believe you get mass adoption when the price point evokes the question “should I buy this or the helicopter?”. The market is limited to literally a few hundred units.”

Yap, telepresence will let the CEO ditch that company jet. But with a price tag of a helicopter, no one else will be enjoying the ride.

I wouldn’t be this harsh, but Dilbert does have a point here…

And I must say I side with Microsoft on this one – if it is to be used by only a handful of people, it makes no sense at all – it has no real impact on communications.

So is there any room for telepresence in our world of mobility, mass communication and personalization?

Yes.

Because telepresence, for me, is where the video conferencing vendors toy with new concepts and technologies – they try them out, see what works and what not, and then introduce them (through their lower-end products of) to the mass market in reasonably priced solutions.