Oct 9, 2006

Coming Closer to Real-Collaboration

Despite significant advances in peripheral devices like webcams and audio head-sets, real-time collaboration is not close to being real. It's not entirely surprising - the bar is still quite high in terms of what the user is expected to do in order to have a good audio/video conversation. There are many issues beyond the user's primary control - bandwidth, network latency, incompatible or insufficient system setups, poorly designed and expensive devices, background noise etc.

Apple has figured out one solution using its iChat software. Offer a full featured audio and video experience only if ALL participants in the conference meet ALL the requirements. For starters, everyone needs to have at least a G3 Mac! If participating in video, everyone needs to have an iSight camera (most Macs now have it built in). Take a look at the requirements below. Of-course it will work! Given that Apple's core clientele (albeit very small) is comprised of high end consumers who demand the best, this high bar of setup requirements is not much of a problem and works for them.


HP has recently introduced a new tool called 'Halo' which is considered a breakthrough in virtual conferencing. This new tool allows remote teams to "meet" in a half-virtual, half-physical room. Developed by special-effects wizards at DreamWorks Animation SKG (the studio behind Shrek) and HP, the Halo "studios" are used by Pepsico, Procter & Gamble, and Novartis, among others. The eerily realistic system allows for more frequent collaborations, reduces travel costs, and increases productivity.


But is there a tool for the masses? I think that one that does stand out (in current and relative terms) is Macromedia Breeze. Macromedia (now Adobe) has done a wonderful job of integrating the various conferencing ‘channels’ – audio, video, presentations, polling, text chat, white-boarding, attendee management, meeting recording etc. Breeze also takes care of audio mixing. I’d highly recommend everyone to try out this application. On the consumer end, both Yahoo! and MSN have brought high-quality audio-video communication to the masses. Their recent interop announcement bridges two huge networks at the text-messaging level.

I hope to see the following trends in the near future that will help lower the bar on RTC.

- PC companies will take a cue from Apple and do tighter device integration with their hardware.
- Broadband adoption will continue to rise. This will make bandwidth a non-issue.
- New RTC related standards (like the DOD’s ISWG) will emerge that will compel vendors to interop at some level. It may start with messaging and will work its way up.

3 comments:

Bhaskar Roy said...

What further helps Apple is that iSight works on Firewire which can transfer data upto 800Mbps as compared to Hi-Speed USB which support only upto 480Mbps.

Apple iChat is really great especially in LAN environments - controlled network environment. However, Apple iChat has mixed experiences when used externally to chat on the best-effort Internet.

I like Macromedia Breeze - especially its instant-on capability. However, I find its video very limiting. I find its postage-stamp size video good for 1-way video streaming (talking head capability) rather than having a 2-way video conversation.

Mehul Sanghavi said...

Cisco follows with its own version of high-end video conferencing system. Read all about it on BusinessWeek

janster said...

I was in a Cisco Telepresence meeting a couple weeks ago with 3 people in Singapore. Less than 2 minutes into the meeting, I totally forgotten that they were not in the same room as I was.

Having see TelePresence in action, I have to say that there is a difference between video conferencing and TelePresence. When the Treo of one of the people in Singapore was ringing (in silent mode...so I really meant vibrating); I thought it was one of the treo's in our room. Also, the video image is so clear I could read the notes that were being taken in Singapore.

Granted, it eats a lot of b/w (2 Mbps and overhead per "screen). So you quickly need 14 Mbps for a full blown set up. It will also set you back several $100K. But if you have the money and spend a lot of time traveling between 2 sites, it may very well be worth it.

--jan