Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video Conferencing

Last response: in Technologies
Share
May 31, 2011 10:31:41 AM

It can be a bit unnerving how quickly technologies proliferate, and it seems to me that the timescales involved are getting a lot shorter.
Take email, for example. The first of the killer apps, it took ages to get off the ground. Indeed, I can remember installing some of the first email systems in the UK way back in the seventies. I can also recall teaching corporate users how to send and receive messages, which seems a little odd some thirty years later when, seemingly, every man and his dog now has an email account.
Text and instant messaging took far less time to get going, social networking came out of nowhere in what seems like the blink of an eye and now it looks like it’s the turn of video.
Think about it. Video is to be found almost everywhere these days. Just about every website has a clip or two of some kind, often in the adverts for goodness sakes. Players are everywhere and it doesn’t take much of an investment to make videos yourself. Just a cheap webcam or a mobile phone with a camera built in, plus a few minutes to work out how to use YouTube.
All of which kind of begs the question, why is video conferencing still so expensive and so difficult? After all, with the proliferation of personal video technology, barriers to the use of video conferencing are disappearing fast and it’s about time vendors woke up to what’s happening and made their products more accessible.
Some are doing just that so, if my theory is correct, video conferencing should be commonplace any day now.

More about : video conferencing

July 28, 2011 2:08:11 AM

Video is still the main part of Video Conferencing, i would have to say for some issues.

Let alone ideas of Conferences.

Given of course though that neither probably are in lack in terms of ideas of each other. So of them both rather they can be used for what they probably would be together. How each alone could still be useful within the idea.

This might conflict of the thought once and awhile too for some means "continued" proliferation to say as said. Also, would be means of differences between live conferences and recorded. Record i think would vary from time to time maybe more on ideas of time. Which probably would be from "time and again" . So leaving on live ideas of Video Conferencing would be more the interest within the idea i would have to say.

And to say of it though is subjective i think heavily. Even a cheap webcam would work, but would it really apply? Cause the webcam is probably set on the idea at times more for the purpose of record for your computer. Not a live stream 100miles down the way. Still based on computer yes, i dont disagree. But of it the use for such a system.

The system would then only be dependent within ideas of networking of course. But how well a webcam plugged into a computer can stream over a network. Let alone more in a receive from recieve interest. Yes?

Since mainly it takes part of communication from one or another on one. Why usually of webcams at some perspectives i think are of some distort and "fuzz", but in basic is covered though, so not much room of argue. But of some displaced interest. Given "coversation" needing to probably still make its place of interest.

Even though someone looks like they are partially coming out of a "mirror funny farm" you can still hear and understood from whats said by being able to hear whats being said.

Webcams interest is usually an intial focus near the source, but can still zoom though, rather say wide and infocus is hard saying though.

With all this though still maintains many additional points though on some ideas of interest within the idea, let alone it. So with efforts towards one or the other should be keep in mind.

Neither idea of many ideas, is probably fairly placed of being able to do regularly within additional interests of things within the same use of it all. Especailly like, Video-Video Conferencing, and Video-Data Conferencing. Taken voice as included.

Of it might be something to think of, but probably not need much to think though after awhile. Again, probably is still fairly expensive, but webcams might not be as much to say.
October 27, 2011 7:50:13 PM

Good reflection!

WebEx lowered their pricing last month. But still pricy to me...
So are all kinds of the so-called cloud conferencing service.


alan_stevens said:
It can be a bit unnerving how quickly technologies proliferate, and it seems to me that the timescales involved are getting a lot shorter.
Take email, for example. The first of the killer apps, it took ages to get off the ground. Indeed, I can remember installing some of the first email systems in the UK way back in the seventies. I can also recall teaching corporate users how to send and receive messages, which seems a little odd some thirty years later when, seemingly, every man and his dog now has an email account.
Text and instant messaging took far less time to get going, social networking came out of nowhere in what seems like the blink of an eye and now it looks like it’s the turn of video.
Think about it. Video is to be found almost everywhere these days. Just about every website has a clip or two of some kind, often in the adverts for goodness sakes. Players are everywhere and it doesn’t take much of an investment to make videos yourself. Just a cheap webcam or a mobile phone with a camera built in, plus a few minutes to work out how to use YouTube.
All of which kind of begs the question, why is video conferencing still so expensive and so difficult? After all, with the proliferation of personal video technology, barriers to the use of video conferencing are disappearing fast and it’s about time vendors woke up to what’s happening and made their products more accessible.
Some are doing just that so, if my theory is correct, video conferencing should be commonplace any day now.

November 3, 2011 8:14:19 AM

Video conferencing is a very good technique at present time and i really like it
!