Right, but how will this be better than screensharing and teleconferencing? I'm not trashing the technology - it is an extremely well done version of a telepresence robot, combined with a spectacular price point. I'm worried that they're not competing with who they think they are competing with.
> how will this be better than screensharing and teleconferencing?
We have a remote worker. During meetings, the iPad that he's on just sits on a desk, pointing at only some of us. It would be nice if he could turn around and face the person he's addressing. It's a small thing, but important.
It means I can go into a meeting and 'sit' at a table with people and turn and see what's being written on the whiteboard.
It's much better for me (because I can attend) and it's better than screensharing and teleconferencing because the participants in SF do not have to use some program to accommodate me.
> and it's better than screensharing and teleconferencing because the participants in SF do not have to use some program to accommodate me.
This is huge. There's nothing worse than holding up an entire meeting while someone struggles to connect to you via video chat while IT is in there sweating bullets because a new driver/update is trying to install itself.
Removing this burden from others would be worth it to me.
This isn't an argument for a telepresence robot - it is an argument for a Cisco teleoffice installation. Having a robot adds a whole new layer of complexity and issues.
Then after the official meeting, when attendees go out to the food table in another room and the tele-attending people can't digitally follow them, I'm sure the attendees will all just not discuss anything important, right?
Or "hey, Bob, I'm glad you could use the teleoffice installation to join us today. Gosh, I wish I could have you with me tomorrow when I go across town to check out a small factory. You know so much more about that stuff than me, but unfortunately the tele-office is huge and all."
First, I think you're overestimating how easily people will adapt to having these robots around. I hope there's no stairs or elevators in between the official meeting and the food table.
Second, does this small factory have high speed wifi? In my experience, that's very rare.
You know what does work in these situations? Flying out to the meeting.
As a technologist and possible early adopter, it is really easy to see how YOU'D use something. It is far harder to put yourself in the shoes of another and judge it from their perspective.
That said, once telepresence robots are in place, they seem to be very sticky - most people don't want to give them up. [1]
A key quote from [1]: "the greatest barrier keeping telerobotics from conquering the office probably isn’t hardware or software, it’s red tape"
I'm not sure why you're being down-voted, your response was on topic and adds to the discussion. Methinks some folks might need to brush up on their HN etiquette.
Anyway, my argument on its own probably isn't sufficient to justify running out and buying a $2000 robot + iPad, etc. but it is surely _part_ of bigger argument for these things.
Also, in response to your later comment about how well-recieved these units will be, I think they will be ubiquitous in a few years. I think you'll see them used in all of the areas discussed so far plus many more we haven't even though of. I could see an army of these things in stores, checking with customers, providing information at airports. The uses are nigh-endless.
Remember, just a few years ago the idea of having a _phone_ that went with you was crazy talk. Now it would be weird to _not_ have one.
