Live data from Hacker News

Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

chrome.blogspot.com

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#142
post #72

We've cobbled together a rough equivalent of this at work, using a Mac Mini + Hangouts, a Logitech video camera, a wall-mounted flatscreen, and a USB speakerphone. The pieces all work as expected, but it's clunky and needs to be better integrated. For example, someone will change the Mac's sound IO for whatever reason, then the Hangout audio IO will change and someone else won't realize this (e.g. sound comes out of…

This device addresses a lot of those issues. Walk into the room; joining the hangout booked for this meeting just requires a single button press.

The Chromebox is bound to a room (GApps resource) so it is aware of which meetings start when, and shows this to you on the screen.

Also, the Mac Mini solution involves creating named GApps accounts, and inevitably those sessions time out or people log them out. These devices also solve that problem (they are 'bound' to your GApps domain), which for a company with more than a few conference rooms can get really old.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#143
post #109

What would convince an organization to switch for something like Cisco's webex? $999 seems like a lot when I can just use my current laptop with a VGA/HDMI cable plugged into the TV and then share over webex. And I am not really sure about using hangouts. For video conferencing the price is probably a steal over what the cisco telepresence costs.

Depending on your flavor of WebEx, the cost is roughly $100/mo. After one year you are a bit ahead with the Chromebox (~$1200/WebEx vs $1000/Chromebox) but I totally agree with your questioning of hangouts as a proven tool in an enterprise environment. Dedicated Cisco telepresence is in the magnitude of $15k to $150k depending on the feature set.

Webex is more suitable for outside sales calls or running through decks.

We've found this unit excellent for team meetings or coworking with remote team members (we were part of the pilot). The audio and video quality is very good, and unlike with Skype, the meeting is just a simple URL you follow to join; distributed in the Calendar event.

You can also bookmark named hangouts; for example if you have a 1:1 with a remote coworker every day. Or, I dunno, if you wanted to hold regular office hours - you could have essentially a static hangout that you use for an hour or two every day. Google is really trying to make Hangouts a solid videoconferencing tool, and for companies already using Google Apps, this is an incredibly valuable addition.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#144
I read this and remember back in the late 90's when Videoconferenceing was moving away from expensive ISDN lines into the internet and thoughts of H.320 and respective document sharing (slides as this does) add-ons and extensions gave a usable platform albeit not cheap. That changes, video compression and codec onto chips came to market and got cheaper and cheaper.

Now some 15 years later after many flavours, Google now offer the option but not just a feature push, but on a slow, methodical gradual feature addition which has seen the progress from VOIP/IM chat into video, into group video into a public contact phone book (aka Google+) of today. Then into a rebrand and now just polishing to the lowest common denominator of user in userbility (I personaly prefered ealier Gmail and chat clients, but that's me and other quirky geeks I suspect).

So why is this big or important more too the point. Well If you view ChromeOS and its features to a modern revamp of the `dumb` terminal (that were not that dumb and could do Various terminal standards and on mainframes even form validation for numeric and alpha feilds and size of input back in the 80's.

Now duringt he 80's a company called SInclair released there next ZX Spectrum replacement which ICL modified and released the OPD (One Per Desk). This was featurewise in mahy respects what a user today wants in a terminal, even had phone built in, though no video back in the 300baud data days.

So too me I see ChromeOS and the slow but sure feature set grow, as the new terminal for the cloud - aka cluster/distributed mainframes we use thesedays. After all everything goes in circles, even technology approach. I know people can and do view webbrowsers as the terminal of our times and yes, many would be right, but if you step back a level you would want something with a little more, though not much more and a good interface and mobiles have opened up the whole touch-screen interfacing (was around in the 80's, just not as cheap and usable) and for many tasks, work very well. But bigger screens always will help upto a point and a real keyboard (although still stuck in a layout that seems like forcing some backwards outdated layout onto new people and children even today, think keyboard-religion). It is with that all in mind for me that make ChromeOS seems like the `dumb` terminal of our times and remember `dumb` terminals are never dumb.

Now when you can add via a MCU/bridge external VC setups and studios into a hangout is when Google will be truely and finaly solidifying a technology that serves our times and needs and if anything else. Least help stop the UN and other World leaders flying around the World to lecture us mear peons why the climate is in a mess and how we should do our part about carbon emisions, whilst they then fly to the poles for photo shoots to add onto there stories of why climate change is happening.

That is what Videoconferencing can truely offer and can, but its main issue has always been taking it serious compared to a jolly/plane flight/travel for so many mentality wise, again think the same mentalities that give us QWERTY keyboard-religions.

One day, but after over 15 years I hope this keeps the momentum and slow but sure approach google has taken so far into Videoconferencing/VOIP. Until then we will always have `dumb` terminals and mainframes be they touchscreen clients or clustered machines called a cloud.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#145

I assure you that this is not a joke. The best 'self-contained' video conference machine I've used in the last year is: 1. $400 less up front than the Chromebox 2. Has an annual service fee $200 less than the Chromebox 3. Has a camera with awesome built in face detection (if one person is in the room it centers on their face, if three people are in it automatically expands to fit them all in, if you wander around the…

As usual, Google picks the Intel-solution over a cheaper solution for political reasons (just like with the original Chromebooks, original Google TV, etc), and ends up failing, because the price is not competitive in the market for that type of product that it is.

I'm not sure how you think the price isn't competitive. Can you link us to other products in the market which can compete with the chromebox on price?

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#146
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised anyone is still using (only) T1s; business cable is a much better deal.

Can't get cable in many locations, and cable often isn't as reliable.

I remember trying to replace a T1 with Comcast Business Cable. It was faster in the office, but variable latency, dropped packets, less usable remote access (just ssh and scp) and more frequent maintenance outages killed it.

IIRC, SDSL turned out to be the better answer (and we really, really wanted to try FiOS, but they didn't support our building).

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company has been using Google Apps for a while, uses Hangouts for videoconferencing, and the worst problem I've had is getting (1) a reminder to add a profile picture and (2) a pointless "What's Hot" email. So not really sure what awful problems you expect to pick up.

Well, we already have all the SSO and authentication that we need in our current setup, so having to overlay another set of credentials could be a humongous hassle, especially since the people using the conference rooms are very non-technical. I love Google Apps, don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't be fitting in my current environment. :-) (We might just be able to set up "dummy" accounts that nobody ever notices or…

Are you worried about employee having a second password for Google Apps? There is SAML integration available to enable SSO.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#148
post #95

Serious question, given that this solution appears to be: 1) based around Google Hangouts, and 2) targeted at enterprise customers: Does using it require Google Plus?

It requires a Google account. There is no such thing as Google Plus account.

True enough, but you don't have to active G+ on your Google Account.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#149
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We had hundreds of expensive Macs at my last gig. Guess how many of those we bought AppleCare for? Zero. This was also true of pretty much every piece of electronic equipment we owned. Note that this isn't very unusual either at most companies. Given the low failure rate of most electronics, it is simply cheaper for the business/IT team to buy a replacement Mac / router / whatever than to pay any kind of yearly maint…

What about extended warranties? A 3 year NBD warranty from some laptop manufacturers will set you back only 10-15% of the laptops replacement cost. Seems like a good deal to me.

Re: Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't fathom why this thing even needs such a high power CPU. Presumably it's running Android, so why not go with ARM + a nice video coprocessor to handle video?
Post reply on HN