Reply #6: Differences [View All]

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.