Video Conferencing Bucks Trend

There seems to be no such thing as a middle ground for video conferencing

By P. J. Connolly  |  11 May 2011

The full-blown telepresence scenario, on one hand, provides a polished and professional experience, but requires a tremendous investment in facilities and hardware. On the other hand, the do-it-yourself approach based on Apple’s FaceTime or a Skype client flies in the face of traditional, top-down approaches to IT; however, many users see these DIY technologies working well for them outside the office and want the same convenience at work. In either case, full interoperability remains a pipe dream for anything beyond the most rudimentary instances.

It’s clear that increasingly powerful consumer devices are pushing IT into a greater flexibility when it comes to what technologies to support. For better or worse, the fit of a device or technology into the master plan for IT becomes less relevant with every year that goes by. For example, corporate IT departments are under increasing pressure to support devices such as the iPad and iPhone; meanwhile, vendors of devices that were developed with the needs of business in mind, such as Research in Motion’s BlackBerry line, are finding themselves playing catch-up instead of running up the score.

The question is not whether Apple and Skype are going to change the way companies look at video conferencing; they are already doing that. Instead, the question is which technology is likely to have the greater impact in the corporate world.

At first glance, it would seem that Skype is way out in front of Apple. After all, its business-focused Skype Connect voice over IP service has been generally available since August 2010, and allows PBX and unified communications systems to connect to Skype’s network. Early this year, Skype added group video calling to its business package, which allows up to 10 clients to participate in a video conference. The Skype for Business client, which is supported only on Windows systems, supports both the voice and video services. At least in theory, Skype is far ahead of Apple’s FaceTime in the business sector since, for now, FaceTime is aimed squarely at the consumer market.

But Skype can be a very tough sell in some organizations, in some cases because of its international flavor. Much of its development effort is based in Estonia, while the company’s headquarters are in Luxembourg. For outfits that are extremely security-conscious—for whatever reason—or focused on the national origin of their software, that alone may be enough to make Skype a non-starter.

Other objections to Skype as a business tool come from a more practical set of concerns. From an engineering perspective, organizations with a very restrictive firewall policy may run into trouble with Skype, as it works best with a wide range of available User Datagram Protocol ports for both outbound and inbound traffic. TCP traffic can be restricted to ports 80 and 443, which handle HTTP and HTTPS, respectively. On top of the network-access question, Skype’s protocols are proprietary; the company does not appear to have submitted them to any standards bodies or to be interested in doing so.

Going It Alone, Sort Of

Apple’s FaceTime is relatively new on the scene, having debuted last year with the iPhone 4. Having been introduced in October 2010 for Mac OS X systems, FaceTime appears destined to replace the company’s iChat service in many aspects. Although Apple CEO Steve Jobs promised at the launch of the iPhone 4 that the company would seek to make FaceTime an “open” standard, no standards bodies have ratified it. It’s not even clear if Apple has submitted FaceTime to any outside groups for consideration.

What is clear is that FaceTime is based on a number of open standards, including the H.264 video codec and the AAC audio codec. Session Initiation Protocol is used for signaling, and other Internet Engineering Task Force standards and technologies are used for firewall and Network Address Translation traversal and for delivering multimedia streams in real time with and without encryption. It’s therefore possible to argue that FaceTime is far closer to openness than Skype, but since FaceTime is restricted to Apple’s own hardware for the moment, in practical terms, it’s a much less open ecosystem than Skype, which in its consumer version is truly multiplatform, as it’s available for Linux, Mac OS X and Windows.

With the number of executives and senior managers packing iPads and iPhones increasing every day, FaceTime is undoubtedly going to worm its way into the enterprise, even if a business-focused set of features is beyond the horizon. Although it presumably would be in Apple’s interest to open up FaceTime to services beyond its control (or that of its partners AT&T and Verizon), such a move could be years away.

Although one of the hot IT concepts of 2011 is consumerization—the application of consumer technologies to business purposes—it’s clear that video conferencing technology is still an archipelago where consumer technologies are just a flyspeck on the map. Interoperability continues to elude the big-ticket telepresence and consumer-focused vendors alike, and that will hobble the entire market for video conferencing for as long as one can see.

 

Source: eWeek

Apple Tops Google as World's Most Valuable Brand: Report

Share

By: Nicholas Kolakowski
2011-05-09
Article Rating:starstarstarstarstar / 2
Share This Article

5
inShare

There are 0 user comments on this Enterprise Mobility story.

Apple has topped Google as the world's most valuable brand, according to an annual survey by research agency Millward Brown.
Rate This Article:
Poor Best
E-mail

Print

PDF Version

Apple has toppled Google as the world’s most valuable brand, according to a new study.

Research agency Millward Brown’s sixth annual BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands study calculates a particular brand’s value via a three-step valuation process. According to a report accompanying the study, the firm isolates the percentage of company earnings “generated by each business that carries the brand,” in order to calculate the value a particular brand adds to a business.

Then, the firm calculates how much the brand’s “close bond” with consumers influences those earnings. “Only a portion of these earnings can be considered as driven by brand equity,” the report states. “This is the ‘brand contribution,’ the measure that describes the degree to which brand plays a role in generating earnings.” In theory, this method “guarantees that the Brand Contribution is rooted in real-life customer perceptions and behavior, not spurious ‘expert opinion.’”

That step completed, “the growth potential of these branded earnings” is then taken into account, using both financial projections and consumer data.

Based on those multistep calculations, Apple topped the list with a “brand value” of $153.2 billion, followed by Google with $111.4 billion and IBM with $100.8 billion. Microsoft, with a brand value of $78.2 billion, found itself squeezed in fifth place between McDonalds ($81 billion) and Coca-Cola ($73.7 billion). Apple’s current ranking represents an 84-percent uptick in brand value since Millward Brown’s last survey.

Facebook also appeared on the list, with a brand value of $19.1 billion—somewhat more conservative than the $50 billion valuation reportedly attached to the social-networking company by Goldman Sachs and investment firm Digital Sky Technologies.

Whether you subscribe to Millward Brown’s valuation, Apple certainly has proven successful in terms of straight-up earnings. For the fiscal 2011 second quarter ended March 26, the company reported revenues of $24.67 billion and a net profit of $5.99 billion. That represents a significant rise from the year-ago quarter, when the company logged revenues of $13.50 billion and a quarterly profit of $3.07 billion.

Apple sold 3.76 million Macs, a year-over-year increase of 28 percent, and 18.65 million iPhones, good for year-over-year unit growth of 113 percent. Apple also sold 4.7 million iPads during the quarter, which saw the release of the next-generation iPad 2. “We sold every iPad 2 that we could make during the quarter,” Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer told analysts and media listening to the company’s April 20 earnings call, while hinting that the 9.7-inch tablet appeals to both consumers and businesses: “Seventy-five percent of the Fortune 500 are testing or deploying the iPad.”

Apple finds itself locked in battle with Google on a number of fronts, most notably mobile operating systems, where the fomer’s iOS is fighting Android for share of the burgeoning smartphone and tablet markets.


Related Articles


Santa and His *Technology*
Writing RFPs: Food for Thought
Efficiency powered by 3G

Comments

There is no comment for this story, please post a comment.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
1 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Loading

resources

  • toolkit
  • whitepaper
  • report

What IT Pros Need to Know about Cloud

IT Managers and CIOs need to keep updated on what the cloud offers and how they can build technical capacity

Now, a new breed of consumers: Smartphonatics

Smartphonatics are consumers who change their shopping or financial behavior as a result of owning a smartphone

TD-LTE: Global Market Scenario

Globally, mobile data traffic is likely to grow at a high rate due to adoption of high bandwidth services.

Improving Performance of 3G, IMS, and LTE Networks

Mobile data traffic is skyrocketing, and based on current trends, traffic levels will not level off in near future.

MORE

Green Computing Report

The role of IT in the push towards environmental sustainability

Altering project history: Seven keys to success

Ways to effectively communicate with senior management on project management

MORE

opinion poll

Which cloud model do you think will be most successful?



Poll result

Public cloud   (11%)
 
Private cloud   (44%)
 
Hybrid cloud   (44%)
 



view older polls