"telepresence" vs. "videoconferencing... " What, if any, distinctions do you see ...

[warren pease]

... separating or differentiating the two? Here's one of the better attempts to create separate niches for these two very closely linked concepts, which seems to me like another arbitrary marketing con job rather than two technical variations on a nearly identical theme:

"Telepresence solutions use video and audio conferencing components as well as other 'arts and sciences' to create a two-way immersive communications experience that simulates an in-person, interactive encounter."

The source will remain anonymous to protect the jargonistas who wrote this drivel.

But there's this recurring idea that the "perfect" telepresence environment must "... create the same-room illusion, (by using) a combination of technology elements and environmental design, often accompanied by high levels of service and support. The telepresence 'value-add' comes from a combination of four elements:"

-- High-quality audio and video (as opposed, I guess, to the old hand-cranked 8 mm movie camera popular during the 1900s)
-- Simplicity (keeping user interaction/intervention to a minimum -- dumb-ass users)
-- High reliability (yuh think?)
-- Environmental excellence (back to this concept of providing a "...reasonable illusion that the remote participants are in the same room."

It's as though we're too dumb to handle the idea that we're talking to a camera and mic with echo-canceling software, our words and images blasted around the rings of Saturn, and finally (nanoseconds later) showing up on some Mujahideen's laptop somewhere in the war-torn Hindu Kush.

Wow! In a flash of blinding revelation, I just realized how OBL ran the whole show from a cave! It's that gawdamn telepresence. Cheneeeey's innocent, I tells ya. Rumsrunnerfeldenbergerplotz, too. Maybe even little Arbusto's soft, uncalloused hands aren't as bloody as everybody supposes. Maybe it all happened just like the official conspiracy theory says it did.

Yup, it's that goldurned telepresence what done turned things to pure shit here in the land where they hate us because we can shop at malls big enough to engulf Aix or Avignon and buy fancy tennis duds carrying ubertwit Tommy Hilfigger's label and made by his small army of sewing-slaves (er... indentured servants is the phrase, I'm sure).


Why I care about all this idiocy is another matter entirely, but I can promise the winning response will eligible for a drawing to win one of many great prizes.

Like this week's special: a partially-expenses-paid weekend for one in Tuba City, Arizona -- that state's capital of questionable dining and romantic sublimation (airfare, lodging, rental car, meals, drinks and pharmaceuticals not included).


Thanks in advance,

sf

[RoyGBiv]

1. This is probably not the answer you're wanting ...

But the distinction I see involves the presence of a public relations major involved in trying to find a way to tap the market of technophobes that inhabit so many corporate board rooms and conference centers.

In other words, as you yourself said, the distinction is one of marketing combined with some genuine technological additions to basic functionality that provide a more realistic experience, sort of like the difference between a standard movie screen and an IMAX picture.

[warren pease]

2. Yup... That's my take, too.

Too bad because I'm stuck looking for an actual technical distinction applicable to that exact problem for a client "just entering the telepresence space." Gawd, how I detest corporatese...

Anyway, thanks for reaffirming the Occam's Razor answer. That was my supposition as well.

Anybody else care to take a flyer on this one?


Best,


sf


(the former "Warren Pease" trying to reclaim my lost identity so I can win great prizes in a local essay contest.)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

3. The difference?

Price. Plain and simple.

Ask a Madison Avenue executive about video conferencing and he'll try to sell you on "telepresence".

[canetoad]

4. One more in agreement

Trying to be subtle with buzzwords. tele-PRESENCE; using the suggestion of being present, in the room. Changing the verb 'video conferencing' to a noun. Are holograms involved? :)

[warren pease]

5. "Are holograms involved?"

No, but wild leaps of the marketeer's twisted imagination sure are.

:fistbump:


Thanks to you and the others for replying to an extremely dumb question without too much overt snickering.

Dumb to me and thee, obviously, but not to "the market," it seems.

But that's only if the market is trying to make money off illusions -- which of course is the very last thing marketeers would do.

Hell, that might even be slightly dishonest, eh?


sf

[HappyCynic]

6. Differences

I think the difference between the two is that "telepresence" is the super-deluxe version of video conferencing... sort of like the difference between a 2.1 sound system and a full-on 5.1 surround sound system. For most technology, there's a market difference between "good" and "good enough". In terms of the four "value-add" elements:

High-quality audio and video - For video conferencing, it's probably acceptable (though not preferred) for the system to drop a few frames and be very slightly jerky. For telepresence, it would break the illusion. Think of the standard movie. If you're in the theater, you can become totally immersed in the film. If there are any imperfections in the display (dropped frames, visual "noise", etc.), it breaks the immersion - it's not enough to stop you from understanding the movie, just enough to break the immersion.

Simplicity - Any extra steps you need to take to do things will also help distract from the experience. Imagine that everyone in the conference has a 2 monitor computer system set up that shows images of everyone on one monitor and a "whiteboard" on the other monitor. With a telepresence system, you'd want one of the new and bloody expensive monitors that combine a monitor and a tablet input system (mostly used by artists so they can "draw" directly on the screen). The scrawling would be immediately transmitted to everyone else so you could all scrawl notes in real-time. With a video conferencing system, it would be fine to have a system where you create the image on your own software, save the file, then have it sent to everyone else. The extra steps would disrupt the flow and make it feel less like a meeting where anyone can instantaneous add their input.

High reliability - Same as high quality audio and video but includes other things like internet connection, software (crashes, high performance, etc.).

Environmental excellence - This ties in to all of the above. It's pretty much "highest end equipment so everything is as big and impressive as it can be". If you had to choose between a 22" monitor and a 40" monitor for 50x the price, "Environmental excellence" would say to go for the 40". Both will do the job but the 40" provides a better, more immersive experience. This could also include things like a camera system that tracks you so you can walk around so you won't go "off-screen" (in an in-person meeting, you would tend to visually follow a person who's walking around the meeting room while giving a presentation).

I hope this all makes sense and my apologies if I've rambled on and on.