Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

chrome.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 161 posts

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#31

Post by nairteashop »

VikingCoder wrote: post #18

I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me? I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?

I agree. I don't get what "support and maintenance" means. I currently have a set-top box (Apple TV), webcam, HD camera and speakers, and don't pay a yearly "maintenance" for any of them. Why would running a teleconferencing software on such a setup cost $250/year?

The only motivation I can see is: "well the competition charges a hefty recurring fee, so why shouldn't we", but then the competition isn't doing all that well for this reason. I see a lot of resemblance to Cisco's "Umi" product, which had a $25/mo fee as well, and was a total flop.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#32

Post by kyrra »

spankalee wrote: post #15
ocfx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you only have like 8 people in the meeting or something?

It says 15. We've only hit this limit with very large all-hands meetings or presentations that lots of people also want to dial into. We often have a separate view-only stream for those cases.

Webex and GoToMeeting handle all-hands type meetings by making it only a 1-way presentation (view-only as you said). Participants can only ask questions via a chat dialog. The nice thing is, it prevent stupid feedback loops you always get when someone forgets to mute themselves.

Though, I believe both Webex and GoToMeeting charge extra to have this ability.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#33

Post by telcodud »

9to5Seth wrote: post #26
VikingCoder wrote: post #18

I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me? I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?

Let's go shopping, shall we? I recognize that Camera as a Logitech ($90) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0... and that mic is a Jabra Speak 410 ($85) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213... And that remote looks like the one that comes with a Google TV ($40). We know the ASUS Box starts at under $200. I'll cut you a deal and sell it to you for $500?

Not the Asus Chromebox that uses Intel Core i7.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#34

Post by sandyarmstrong »

9to5Seth wrote: post #26
VikingCoder wrote: post #18

I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me? I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?

Let's go shopping, shall we? I recognize that Camera as a Logitech ($90) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0... and that mic is a Jabra Speak 410 ($85) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213... And that remote looks like the one that comes with a Google TV ($40). We know the ASUS Box starts at under $200. I'll cut you a deal and sell it to you for $500?

The i7 version will be more than $200, too.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#37

Post by aiiane »

nairteashop wrote: post #31
VikingCoder wrote: post #18

I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me? I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?

I agree. I don't get what "support and maintenance" means. I currently have a set-top box (Apple TV), webcam, HD camera and speakers, and don't pay a yearly "maintenance" for any of them. Why would running a teleconferencing software on such a setup cost $250/year? The only motivation I can see is: "well the competition charges a hefty recurring fee, so why shouldn't we", but then the competition isn't doing all that…

You don't pay a yearly maintenance for any of them because if they break, you're going to have to fix them yourself.

Most companies prefer to actually have a support plan, because if they don't, the alternative is to pay their own people to fix them, and it's usually cheaper to not pay someone full-time to have expertise in that area.

This is a business-focused product offering.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#38

Post by joebo »

As a remote worker, I could see getting something like this for our central office. I need an almost frictionless solution and this sounds pretty close "walk into the room, click the remote once and you’re instantly in the meeting." My coworkers aren't interested in walking into a conference room with their laptop and sending a hangout. It would be useful if it supported multiple cameras somehow - which might break the hangout model. I want one pointed to the table and one pointed to the whiteboard.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#39

Post by aiiane »

rubiquity wrote: post #29

So regular computers just can't cut the mustard at streaming video? I don't see the value in a custom hardware product for this and I can't quite justify the price tag. It's not often that Google creates a product where you say to yourself "Oh, I guess this just wasn't created for me" but I think this is one of those rare occasions. Disclaimer: I'm not a megacorp with millions to spend.

This is very much a business-focused product.

(Also, really? You think AdWords and AdSense are created for the average consumer?)

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#40

Post by rubiquity »

aiiane wrote: post #39
rubiquity wrote: post #29

So regular computers just can't cut the mustard at streaming video? I don't see the value in a custom hardware product for this and I can't quite justify the price tag. It's not often that Google creates a product where you say to yourself "Oh, I guess this just wasn't created for me" but I think this is one of those rare occasions. Disclaimer: I'm not a megacorp with millions to spend.

This is very much a business-focused product. (Also, really? You think AdWords and AdSense are created for the average consumer?)

I never said anything about the average consumer, I said "me" as in, well, me.
Post reply on HN