Many organizations have tried to build a practical video conferencing system, many of which have failed. Here we summarized why face-to-face contact is preferred to video conferencing.

An Interview with Corbis Lee

It is an interesting market. Video conferencing technology was first introduced at the 1964 World Expo and quickly became popular as a means of replacing telephones. However, early supply was sluggish.

Thirty years later, Intel even entered the market, but the results were disappointing. Andy Grove, a successful CEO, later called the decision is his biggest mistake.

Ten years later, HP was also ambitiously engaged in video conferencing with the Halo System. In the end, however, they had to admit failure and sell it. Today, Logitech is trying to get a new video conferencing market.

The main purpose of video conferencing is to ease the burden of traveling long distances for meetings. Nonetheless, the technology has not yet become mainstream in meeting methods, and face-to-face meetings are preferred. Why?

Technology, Compatibility, Ease of Use and Price

There are three hypotheses about the failure of video conferencing. The explanation that it is due to the disadvantages of the technology itself, the explanation that the inter-vendor system is incompatible, the explanation that the system needs additional education and help, and the explanation is too expensive.

Let’s look at each one. Early AT & T systems were very poor, but later improvements in technology have enabled significantly higher fidelity communications. However, there has been a problem of latency. It took too long to transmit and decode audio and video signals, which once again turned the video conferencing off. However, this problem has also been resolved over time. Today’s systems can deliver more than HD resolution with much less latency.

In the past, there was a problem that when one vendor’s system was purchased, it could not communicate with another vendor’s system. By analogy, iPhone users could only talk to other iPhone users. Recalling that the introduction of this technology to the market for the first time was a “communication device,” a communication company that knew better than to have free communication with other communication devices, it was not clear what initial video conferencing I am curious about.

Anyway, products like Skype, which ultimately overcame all these shortcomings, allow free communication between vendors and devices on the market.

Some early video conferencing systems were very difficult to use. Experts had to set up the system one by one, and the other side of the phone had a specialist who could use it only if it was installed. Today, if you simply use Skype or WebEx, you do not need the help of a expert.

Initially, prices were unusually high. Even the cheapest systems cost about $20,000 per connected office and up to $250,000 in very expensive cases. In addition, there was a hassle of securing separate rooms for video conferencing equipment and facilities. That’s because you could see multiple screens in one place.

One time, DreamWorks introduced the HP Halo system, which used to cover the entire wall of the room with a screen. In order to make a live video meeting that felt like being in a room with employees of Hollywood and the New York branch. In addition to the initial installation cost of only $250,000, it cost an additional $10,000 per month to maintain and manage the facility.

But recently, systems released by Logitech cost about $ 1,000 and do not require additional management. Perhaps the most economical system in terms of price among the existing solutions on the market.

All of the early issues, such as low cost, low latency, and ease of use, have all been improved. But why is it that video conferencing has not yet become mainstream in corporate communications?

Unresolved Issues

While almost all of the early issues and limitations of video conferencing have been addressed, video conferencing is still not seen as the first choice for remote meetings. Still, many prefer to face-to-face conversations while taking long-distance flights.

First, the human problem remains. When you hold a remote meeting, you have more limitations than when you meet and talk directly. In addition to the actual meetings, shorter and informal side meetings, private conversations between participants, and the process of getting to know each other and meeting each other after the official meeting are not enough to fill with video conferencing.

In this regard, there was an interesting suggestion to install cameras and displays on the door frames of each meeting place so that they could share informal and conversations in a situation similar to when they were in actual space. Even when tested, it proved to be a pretty viable solution, but it has never actually been implemented as a product.

Possible Alternatives & Virtual Reality Technology

That means that today’s video conferencing systems have many improvements in speed, price, and ease of use, but many people feel that those who attend meetings are missing much of the meeting. It is also true that we are avoiding this method because of the impression that complete communication is difficult.

Personally, I believe that only high-quality virtual reality technology can provide the only plausible solution to this problem at this time. With virtual reality technology, people who are remotely connected to the meeting will be able to communicate as if they were together at the meeting, no matter where they are.

From Virtual to Reality

But virtual reality is not so familiar to our generation. Can the current generation communicate smoothly in a virtual world beyond cultural, emotional, and physical shocks? Perhaps this technology is likely to apply to generations who are accustomed to doing business in the virtual world for long periods of time.That’s because long-distance travel is no more dangerous and cumbersome than it is now, and for some time it will be hard for video conferencing to completely replace actual meetings.

Author Bio:

Simon Hopes is a renowned author and social media enthusiast. He has been watching the video conferencing market all the while.