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.
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.