VidyoConferencing vs. video conferencing
Vidyo execs discuss the merits of a Scalable Video Coding (SVC) approach to video conferencing
Convergence & VoIP Alert
By
Steve Taylor
and
Larry Hettick
,
Network World
, 05/13/2009
Sign up for this newsletter now!
Steve Taylor and Larry Hettick offer news and analysis on the latest in IP convergence from fixed-mobile convergence, presence management, IP video and unified communications.
- Share/Email
- Tweet This
- Print
Following our recent newsletter about video over IP featuring a discussion with Radvision, we had a chance to get another viewpoint from Ofer Shapiro, CEO at Vidyo and Marty Hollander, SVP for Marketing, about the
merits of a Scalable Video Coding (SVC) approach. Both executives are industry veterans in video conferencing and enjoy bringing
disruptive technologies to market.
Shapiro started the conversation suggesting that the difference between loving and hating video conferencing systems is proportional
to the amount of effort placed in managing the network, the conference room environment, scheduling and "making it easy" for
users. Shapiro noted that legacy video conferencing systems started out with about one-quarter of the picture quality seen
on a standard definition television, and that these legacy systems still account for about 50% of video calls.
To solve the problem both of making management easy and improving the video quality, high-definition telepresence systems
evolved but with one big drawback, according to Shapiro, who said the price tag can range up to $300,000 of capital investment
per room. "That's a nice replacement for the corporate jet," he said, "but it is not a productivity tool for most business
[processes.] And you can’t provide telepresence everywhere with this price." Our goal is to reduce by an order of magnitude
the cost of operating solutions like that.
Shapiro added that when desktop users join as telepresence participants these multiple call sites are problematic when using
traditional technology like a video Multi-point Control Unit (MCU) because the MCU adds both latency and price for every site.
Hollander added, "The problem for traditional solutions is that the cost of the bandwidth alone becomes a very significant
operating expense. CIOs tell me that this has prevented them from considering expanding videoconferencing beyond room systems
where they can control the network."
Hollander continued, "The difference is that VidyoConferencing uses 'best efforts' networks, such as the Internet. A low-cost
100MB line to an office will enable 30 simultaneous HD participants. A DSL+ or cable modem connection to a home will provide
more than enough bandwidth for desktop users to participate at HD quality. The monthly operating costs for VidyoConferencing
can be less than 10% of the network bandwidth costs of traditional videoconferencing."
Steve Taylor is president of Distributed Networking Associates and publisher/editor-in-chief of Webtorials. Larry Hettick is a principal analyst at Current Analysis.
Comments (4)
But the configuration cost can be painfulBy Anonymous on May 13, 2009, 11:28 amEven though the quality of Vidyo is amazing when it works, the challenge is that it is not as simple as a webcam using just ports 80 and 443. To use Vidyo, there...
Reply | Read entire comment
VidyoDesktop ReviewBy TracyVirtualOffice on May 13, 2009, 2:00 pmSee my review of VidyoDesktop here: http://telbitconsulting.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/vidyodesktop-review/
Reply | Read entire comment
Firewall Solution - not as painful as it soundsBy Anonymous on May 13, 2009, 2:32 pmLet's compare apples to apples... When using a 'webcam' application the participants connect through an external service which facilitates the session(most if not...
Reply | Read entire comment
An even simpler solutionBy Hexa2 on May 13, 2009, 4:47 pmWe have an even simpler, just as secure solution that costs a fraction of what Vidyo or any other telepresence company has out there. All of these need significant...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments