On May 24, 2006 SightSpeed introduced version 4.6 of their video conferencing solution and I must say that I was blown away. I have been patiently waiting for a video solution with quality as good as, if not better, than Apple’s iChat AV which would also work cross-platform and be easy to use. Finally SightSpeed has come to the rescue.
My first hope for a cross-platform solution with great video was Skype. Alas, Skype seems to be lagging greatly when it comes to unified features. Skype for Windows has a lot of nifty stuff; they are even up to version 2.5 with a slew of new beta features. The Mac OS X version is stuck at 1.4 with chat and voice calling (although it is finally a Universal App). Only the Windows XP version of Skype has video and even that video support is a bit lackluster.
My next hope was with the Gizmo Project, but my plea for video support along with SMB VoIP support seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I still have a bit of hope for Gizmo as they are based entirely on open standards and that gives them a huge advantage over everyone else, but today they are just another VoIP provider. There’s MSN Messenger, but the video support there is temperamental and not cross-platform. There’s iChat AV linked to AIM, but the video is just awful when using it cross-platform. The best solution I ever found was Apple’s own iChat AV to iChat AV on two or more very powerful Macintosh systems. That is, it *was* the best solution, until today.
SightSpeed allows PC-to-PC video/voice calls (VVoIP) for free and PC-to-PSTN (standard analog phone) calls for a reasonable rate just like Skype. Where SightSpeed differs from Skype is not only the fact that their Mac and PC versions have feature parity, but the video quality is stunning for lower bitrates. To put this into perspective, Skype does not even have feature parity between XP and 2000 let alone cross-platform, video is only supported between Windows XP to Windows XP, and the video quality is about half of that of SightSpeed at the same if not larger bitrates.
Apple introduced iChat AV in June 2004 with multi-party support allowing mere mortals to set up a 4-way video conference call. This requires pretty beefy systems on all sides for it to work right and it’s only supported Mac to Mac. SightSpeed also has multi-party conferencing, although it’s a bit different. The CPU requirements for SightSpeed are a lot lower than that of iChat and, unlike iChat, it works cross-platform. To get multi-party conferencing in SightSpeed one must buy a pro account. The pro account is $4.95 a month or $49.95 a year. Only the user initiating the multi-party conference needs to be a pro user, all the other users can be the basic free accounts. One thing missing from multi-party conferences is the ability to set one up on the fly. If I’m chatting with a friend trying to set up plans for the weekend and want to bring in another friend, I must first hang up the call, then initiate a multi-party conference. Apple’s iChat AV allows me to add callers on the fly as well as remove them, which makes the process much more seamless. This lack of on-the-fly support is a minor annoyance, but it would still be nice if the functionality was there in SightSpeed.
The new SightSpeed beta CODEC is not h.264 or On2’s VP7 as I had originally thought. Instead they opted for the older h.263 CODEC, although I’m not sure if it’s h.263, h.263+ or h.263 2000 that they implemented. I’m a little disappointed that SightSpeed did not opt for the newer and sexier h.264 but I do understand that CPU requirements for h.264 are very high and that CODEC is still in its infancy. The original SightSpeed CODEC is nice, but it’s nowhere near as good as the new beta CODEC that they have implemented. If you’re going to download and try it out, make sure to select the beta CODEC from the ‘Optional Settings’ section or you’ll be working with video quality along the lines of every other conferencing system out there.
To put everything into perspective I have created a grid of the top few video conferencing solutions out there. I was going to include WengoPhone in the mix as well, but I have been unable to test the solution as of yet due to technical problems. I also have not yet tested Yahoo messenger since I don’t know anyone on it and I don’t believe it supports audio and video calls, it’s more of a VoIP call with the ability to look at a webcam.
|
|
SightSpeed |
iChat AV |
MSN |
AIM |
Skype |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Video Support |
Yes, cross-platform |
Yes, Mac-to-Mac for full support |
Yes, XP-to-XP only |
Yes, cross-platform |
Yes, XP-to-XP only. |
|
Audio Support |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
PSTN outbound calls |
Yes |
No |
Beta |
Yes |
Yes |
|
PSTN inbound calls |
No (forthcoming) |
No |
Unknown status |
Beta |
Yes |
|
Video CODEC |
h.263 in beta |
h.264 Mac-to-Mac, unknown Mac-to-PC |
Mimic |
Unknown |
On2 TrueMotion VP7 |
|
Platform Feature Parity |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Text Chat |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Mutli-Party calls |
Audio and Video |
Audio and Video |
Audio |
Audio |
Audio |
|
Voicemail |
Audio and Video |
No |
Audio |
Audio |
Audio |
The next stage in the voice and video communication options is adding business class rules. Skype and SightSpeed are great for consumer to consumer, but they really fall down in the small to medium sized business (SMB). It would be fantastic to see one of these companies run with some basic SMB functionality such as call blast, find me/follow me, call parking, call transfers and automated attendant. Imagine a SightSpeed running where I could call the ‘Technology Evangelist Receptionist’ and they could then forward my call to the proper person, send me to voice mail or put me on hold until what I’m looking for is found. That call could be a PSTN-to-VoIP call or a VoIP/VVoIP call-to-VoIP/VVoIP call. Add another layer for application sharing and support options, now we have something that could rival Cisco’s CallManager suite for a fraction of the price and none of the headache. I believe this will be the natural evolution of the product. I don’t know what SightSpeed has planned, but I do know that they have been able to do a lot of things that Skype has not been able to, and they seem more agile than the bigger players. I would bet that either SightSpeed or Gizmo project will hit the Holy Grail first.
If you’re looking for a conferencing solution or if you just enjoy cool technology, make sure to download SightSpeed, then drop me a line! My SightSpeed ID is benjaminhigginbotham@technologyevangelist.com Do you know of a better solution that I missed? Have any ideas on how to fill in the missing information in the above grid? Please let us know in comments!
On May 24, 2006 SightSpeed introduced version 4.6 of their video conferencing solution and I must say that I was blown away. I have been patiently waiting for a video solution with quality as good as, if not better, than Apple’s iChat AV which would also work cross-platform and be easy to use. Finally SightSpeed has come to the rescue.
My first hope for a cross-platform solution with great video was Skype. Alas, Skype seems to be lagging greatly when it comes to unified features. Skype for Windows has a lot of nifty stuff; they are even up to version 2.5 with a slew of new beta features. The Mac OS X version is stuck at 1.4 with chat and voice calling (although it is finally a Universal App). Only the Windows XP version of Skype has video and even that video support is a bit lackluster.
My next hope was with the Gizmo Project, but my plea for video support along with SMB VoIP support seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I still have a bit of hope for Gizmo as they are based entirely on open standards and that gives them a huge advantage over everyone else, but today they are just another VoIP provider. There’s MSN Messenger, but the video support there is temperamental and not cross-platform. There’s iChat AV linked to AIM, but the video is just awful when using it cross-platform. The best solution I ever found was Apple’s own iChat AV to iChat AV on two or more very powerful Macintosh systems. That is, it *was* the best solution, until today.
SightSpeed allows PC-to-PC video/voice calls (VVoIP) for free and PC-to-PSTN (standard analog phone) calls for a reasonable rate just like Skype. Where SightSpeed differs from Skype is not only the fact that their Mac and PC versions have feature parity, but the video quality is stunning for lower bitrates. To put this into perspective, Skype does not even have feature parity between XP and 2000 let alone cross-platform, video is only supported between Windows XP to Windows XP, and the video quality is about half of that of SightSpeed at the same if not larger bitrates.
Apple introduced iChat AV in June 2004 with multi-party support allowing mere mortals to set up a 4-way video conference call. This requires pretty beefy systems on all sides for it to work right and it’s only supported Mac to Mac. SightSpeed also has multi-party conferencing, although it’s a bit different. The CPU requirements for SightSpeed are a lot lower than that of iChat and, unlike iChat, it works cross-platform. To get multi-party conferencing in SightSpeed one must buy a pro account. The pro account is $4.95 a month or $49.95 a year. Only the user initiating the multi-party conference needs to be a pro user, all the other users can be the basic free accounts. One thing missing from multi-party conferences is the ability to set one up on the fly. If I’m chatting with a friend trying to set up plans for the weekend and want to bring in another friend, I must first hang up the call, then initiate a multi-party conference. Apple’s iChat AV allows me to add callers on the fly as well as remove them, which makes the process much more seamless. This lack of on-the-fly support is a minor annoyance, but it would still be nice if the functionality was there in SightSpeed.
The new SightSpeed beta CODEC is not h.264 or On2’s VP7 as I had originally thought. Instead they opted for the older h.263 CODEC, although I’m not sure if it’s h.263, h.263+ or h.263 2000 that they implemented. I’m a little disappointed that SightSpeed did not opt for the newer and sexier h.264 but I do understand that CPU requirements for h.264 are very high and that CODEC is still in its infancy. The original SightSpeed CODEC is nice, but it’s nowhere near as good as the new beta CODEC that they have implemented. If you’re going to download and try it out, make sure to select the beta CODEC from the ‘Optional Settings’ section or you’ll be working with video quality along the lines of every other conferencing system out there.
To put everything into perspective I have created a grid of the top few video conferencing solutions out there. I was going to include WengoPhone in the mix as well, but I have been unable to test the solution as of yet due to technical problems. I also have not yet tested Yahoo messenger since I don’t know anyone on it and I don’t believe it supports audio and video calls, it’s more of a VoIP call with the ability to look at a webcam.
|
|
SightSpeed |
iChat AV |
MSN |
AIM |
Skype |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Video Support |
Yes, cross-platform |
Yes, Mac-to-Mac for full support |
Yes, XP-to-XP only |
Yes, cross-platform |
Yes, XP-to-XP only. |
|
Audio Support |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
PSTN outbound calls |
Yes |
No |
Beta |
Yes |
Yes |
|
PSTN inbound calls |
No (forthcoming) |
No |
Unknown status |
Beta |
Yes |
|
Video CODEC |
h.263 in beta |
h.264 Mac-to-Mac, unknown Mac-to-PC |
Mimic |
Unknown |
On2 TrueMotion VP7 |
|
Platform Feature Parity |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Text Chat |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Mutli-Party calls |
Audio and Video |
Audio and Video |
Audio |
Audio |
Audio |
|
Voicemail |
Audio and Video |
No |
Audio |
Audio |
Audio |
The next stage in the voice and video communication options is adding business class rules. Skype and SightSpeed are great for consumer to consumer, but they really fall down in the small to medium sized business (SMB). It would be fantastic to see one of these companies run with some basic SMB functionality such as call blast, find me/follow me, call parking, call transfers and automated attendant. Imagine a SightSpeed running where I could call the ‘Technology Evangelist Receptionist’ and they could then forward my call to the proper person, send me to voice mail or put me on hold until what I’m looking for is found. That call could be a PSTN-to-VoIP call or a VoIP/VVoIP call-to-VoIP/VVoIP call. Add another layer for application sharing and support options, now we have something that could rival Cisco’s CallManager suite for a fraction of the price and none of the headache. I believe this will be the natural evolution of the product. I don’t know what SightSpeed has planned, but I do know that they have been able to do a lot of things that Skype has not been able to, and they seem more agile than the bigger players. I would bet that either SightSpeed or Gizmo project will hit the Holy Grail first.
If you’re looking for a conferencing solution or if you just enjoy cool technology, make sure to download SightSpeed, then drop me a line! My SightSpeed ID is benjaminhigginbotham@technologyevangelist.com Do you know of a better solution that I missed? Have any ideas on how to fill in the missing information in the above grid? Please let us know in comments!
The thing I like most about traditional web search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN is that they ask very little of me as a content creator. All I have to do is make my web site easy for to crawl by their search engine spiders. The beauty of this is that it’s a fairly easy thing to do, and I don’t have to change a thing if additional search engines are launched. New search engines can index my site’s content and display results from my site without any additional work on my part.
Compare that to video search sites like YouTube, Google Video, Veoh, iFilm, etc. where each service expects me to upload my content to their servers. They expect me to upload content I’ve created to their servers so they can serve ads around it, use it to build online communities, and basically profit from my work. Doesn’t that seem strange?
Online video services should stop wasting their most valuable asset: their contributor’s time. Why should I spend hours logging in to dozens of online video sites, uploading the same video over and over again, then adding the same titles, descriptions and tags at each site? The redundancy involved is insane.
Of course, I’m not totally opposed to sharing my content on video sites since they have something I like: viewers. The problem I have is with how inefficient it is to contribute content to online video services today. If online video services are really interested in great content from busy people, they need to figure out a way to streamline the publishing process.
Here’s what I want from online video services interested in my content:
2. Video services should obey robots.txt protocols, giving content creators the ability to opt-out of content syndication with all or selected video services.
3. Video services that link to the original source rather than host content (example: iTunes podcasts) should look first for torrent versions of a file so creators of great content don’t become victims of their own success with skyrocketing bandwidth charges.
Until something like that exists, there is a great opportunity for a video uploading services that lets me upload content once then pushes it to all online video services. Additionally, if it provided a dashboard reporting views, downloads, favorites, comments, etc. on each video services, I’d be very very happy.
What do you think online video services could be doing better from a content creator’s perspective?
-
Watch videos of cities and neighborhoods produced by people in the know locally.
-
Upload and share photos on blogs, forums, etc., using this new free service.
-
A Duluth, MN brew pub is using RSS to keep their clientelle up to date on their latest batches via RSS. Nice work, Fitger’s.
-
“It’s also building an alternative environment for software, advertising, and Internet content that is challenging the business models and eroding the revenue of everyone from publishers to software makers to Internet service providers.”
-
“Creating quality software products means knowing when to fix bugs and when to leave well alone, writes Eric Sink”
-
“Our bottom 25 designees are all relatively well-known items, and many had multimillion-dollar marketing campaigns behind them. In other words, they were made by people who should have known better. In fact, three of the ten worst were made by Microsoft.
A little over two weeks have passed since we launched our WhoLinked.com contest to see who could move into the top-10 websites linking to Technology Evangelist according to our Wholinked.com report.
Here is where we started on May 10th:
As I understand it, WhoLinked.com calculates their rankings based on a combination of sites they see ranking high on MSN, Yahoo, and Google. Something about the formula seems to reward fresh links since some of the new results may not have a higher PageRank/link popularity than previous top ranking WhoLinked results.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide when is best to add a link in order to appear in the top-10 at the end of the contest. Good luck!
-
“This is an amazing turnaround, from a bipartisan stance against net neutrality, to a bipartisan stance for net neutrality.”
-
A great list of the top techie related shared photos on Flickr. Cool stuff.
-
“The company said the wireless network will provide Internet access for residents, businesses and visitors in New Orleans. It will offer a free service for a limited time during the city’s rebuilding efforts and a faster paid-for tier service.”
-
Free supersaver shipping and Amazon Prime for over 10,000 non-perishable food items.
I spent a couple hours at a
downtown
Minneapolis Panera Bread today sitting outside enjoying the afternoon
weather while drinking a lemonade and catching up on a few emails between
meetings. At one point, I checked up on a few of my favorite RSS feeds in
Bloglines, including
The
Superficial for my daily dose of celebrity dirt so I can speak with
authority on ”important” issues like the latest on Brit & Kevin,
Nick & Jessica, Angelina & Brad, and - of course - Paris Hilton.
But to my surprise, I was denied my celebrity gossip by Panera’s content
filter:
Doesn’t Panera understand that I need to know what’s Paris is up to at
Cannes? What if Brad and Angelina baby pictures were posted and I didn’t
know because of Panera’s filter?
I think this is the first content filter I’ve knowingly encountered in the 13
years I’ve been on the web. With all the news about major search engines
blocking web sites in China that they found unacceptable, I figured The
Superficial must be banned, right? Um, no:
And there is no shortage of Paris Hilton on Google Images China:
So I can keep up on celebrity gossip from China, but not from Panera
Bread in the middle of Minneapolis. Does blocking popular celebrity
gossip web sites lead us down a slippery slope to government suppression of
dissenting opinions? Will I pick a different WiFi hot spot the next time I
find myself in need of some food and Internet in downtown Minneapolis? Only
time will tell.
