“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

Editor’s viewpoint on their differences, likenesses and future…

We all just recently viewed an historic CNN holographic interview on an historic Election Night. CNN stated this type of imaging has never been done before on National TV and I believe that. I haven’t seen anything like it. The live interview caught me by surprise and sure had the “wow” factor attached to it didn’t it? Here’s a link to the actual interview.

CNN Hologram Video.

The question now has to be asked. Is it Telepresence?

I’m no expert on the subject but I’m going to throw my hat into the ring, go out on a limb and say yes, I believe it is. Although I know many video conferencing purists are rolling their eyes and grabbing their guns right about now with my statement.

While I do know that Telepresence still hasn’t been universally defined (Houston, we have a problem), here’s how I see it…. Broken down to its simplest form – “tele” (through electronic means) and “presence” (present). This is how I’m justifying my opinion by lumping holography and Telepresence together. Just as Telepresence is surely an offshoot of video conferencing, holographic imaging (like we viewed on CNN) surely has to be considered an offshoot of Telepresence. The interviewer was “telepresent” from Chicago and beamed into the CNN Election Headquarters. She was most assuredly – “telepresent”. There was negligible latency, the imaging was fantastic and both interviewers were rehearsed on what they would say. I’ve just recently read that CNN actually “downgraded” the experience to make it “movie” quality and not as good as it could have been. Maybe they thought us mere mortals would be shocked if they showed their complete hand. I have a feeling it was so big to them, they didn’t want it to get upstaged by the historic election. I’m willing to bet we’ll see the “true” power of this technology in the upcoming weeks and months when they can put the pedal to the medal and show it off without having it sidetracked.

What an amazing time for this technology (all differences and opinions aside). Telepresence Doctors, nurses, teachers, schools and healthcare (healthpresence) will benefit from the recent gains in this state-of-the-art industry whether holograms, Telepresence or holography. Airlines also have to see the threat to a portion of their business travel. Hell, who wants go through security and fly to Miami for a two-hour conference when you can look them in the eye via Telepresence?

Beam me up Scotty! Simply amazing…!

L2 – Admin,
Telepresence Forum