Magor TeleCollaboration compared to telepresence
Telepresence is a big buzzword
in the evolution of video-based conferencing communications these days.
But does telepresence really liberate people from the confines of technology
or does it actually end up adding restrictions to how people naturally
collaborate and get work done? Let’s compare.
Magor TeleCollaboration |
Telepresence |
- No need for a dedicated room. You can use Magor TeleCollaboration
from your office, a meeting room or right at your desk.
|
- Requires a dedicated telepresence room.
|
- No advance scheduling required. Allows spontaneous 1080p visual
collaboration.
|
- Requires advanced scheduling. May or may not offer 1080p video
resolution.
|
- All participants have a peer-to-peer relationship so there
is no single point of control or failure.
|
- Often requires use of a central “bridge” between participants,
which can create a single point of control and a single point
of failure.
|
- New participants can be easily and spontaneously added to a
conversation already in progress without a delay in the conversation.
|
- Adding participants to a conversation already in progress can
be difficult and may result in a delay in the conversation.
|
- The participants at each endpoint have full control to customize
what they see.
|
- The participants at each endpoint have limited control over
what they see.
|
- Any participant can modify a shared document or multiple shared
documents.
|
- Difficult and time consuming to allow more than one person
to modify a single shared document.
|
- White boards, blackboards, flip charts, books are easily incorporated.
|
- Often very difficult to incorporate content that’s not on a
PC.
|
- Collaboration across PC, Mac and Solaris platforms
is supported.
|
- Collaboration across PC, Mac and Solaris
platforms is typically not supported in Web collaboration solutions.
|
