“Telepresence”.

I get a kick out of seeing the so called “video conferencing experts” struggle to define this simple word. So far the most common and widely available definition of “Telepresence” is from Wikipedia. It states:

“Telepresence refers to a set of Technologies which allow a person to feel as if they were present, to give the appearance that they were present, or to have an effect, at a location other than their true location.”

That simple sentence says it all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, VC (video conferencing) experts all have opinions gained from their years and years in the VC industry. They’ve been there, done that and have gained all the knowledge required to become wizards of their industry. That same “vast amount of gained knowledge” they’ve amassed is also part of the reason we’ve been waiting for VC to prove itself since the video phone in 1964. Instead of running to a common goal, they’re running in circles. Smart people do that ya’ know.

I think they’ve all missed the point. There, I said it. That’s sure to make more than a few people cringe. Oh well. Here’s another observation. It’s probably not their job to “define” Telepresence anyway. They’re looking so past the point, kind of like a brain surgeon that can’t change a flat tire. They’re thinking it has to do with video conferencing, 3-D, Pepper’s Ghost, video over IP or even 4-D magic. Lenses, lighting, immersiveness, latency, HD, Plasma, Bandwidth, etc. The question lingers – at what point does video conferencing become Telepresence? Is it 70ms latency? Video over IP? HD immersiveness? Right?

Wrong. All wrong.

How about it doesn’t matter? Video conferencing (in all past and future reincarnations) is just a facet of “Telepresence”. 3-D imaging? Another facet. What we watched on historical CNN Election night with the “hologram” camera trick? Another facet.

Simply put: Tele – “to or at a distance” and Presence – “the impressive manner or appearance of a person”. Telepresence. End of story, case closed.

The companies that have figured out that the word “Telepresence” is more about marketing then an actual definition are going to soar, while others that are still trying to define it are going to get kicked to the curb. It doesn’t matter who invented it. It does matter who’s going to capitalize on it. Telepresence in its essence is the boss barking orders via a walkie talkie (or string and cup for that matter). It doesn’t matter if it’s 720i HD at 30 fps, or 3-D Pepper’s Ghost technology, or 300 cameras building a trick hologram. Those methods are just the means to convey Telepresence, not Telepresence defined.

Presently, Cisco is running with the ball because of their TV commercials and Internet play. Marketing 101. They didn’t invent Telepresence, but they’ve been marketing it. They’re not waiting on unified conferencing “Standards”, they’re not waiting on a definition and they’re surely not waiting on anybody or anything. They are forging ahead with their Telepresence related products. Remember, if you believe like I do that Telepresence is not about “video conferencing”, but about “all” the different technologies that can make up “Telepresence”, you can change the tire and get on down the road instead of getting your gray matter mired in the mud thinking up a definition that won’t please all of the people anyway.

Sometimes we’re so smart, we’re stupid.

Just my two cents worth. Take it or leave it.

L2 Lumpy (telepresent and accounted for)
Telepresence Forum