Tuve una sesión informativa esta semana sobre la increíble cámara de sala de conferencias Poly E70 y X70 (con altífonos incorporados). Estas son piezas de hardware increíbles, mas solo marchan con Zoom de momento (si bien la certificación de Teams va a llegar pronto). Y esta falta de interoperabilidad entre plataformas de conferencias prosigue haciendo que cada dispositivo de esta clase sea una adquiere considerablemente más peligrosa de lo que habría de ser.
In the context of this Poly announcement, let's explore why conferencing service vendors fail to understand what network and telecommunications companies understood more than 3 decades ago. In short: this material must be able to interact.
The Poly Studio E70 and X70 in detail
The E70, which sells for about € three and five hundred, and the X70, which costs about € six and zero, were set aside at birth; the E70 is a standalone version of the X70. (The camera seems to borrow from smartphones that have altered multiple cameras to handle different needs and sizes of conference rooms.) The two units have dual cameras, a huge wide angle and a focused one, with digital pan and zoom and tracking capabilities. A loudspeaker in a room. Hardware can automatically switch between wide and narrow according to the number of speakers in a room.
![Poly Studio E70]()
polytechnic school El Poly Studio E70. The camera demo featured passable 4K resolution, nice transitions (fade in and out) between modes, and pan and zoom that seemed impressively fast. These are designed for medium to large conference rooms, primarily those set up in a room-length rectangle behind the camera. I am not a fan of the off white E70 as most conference room monitors are black and this will contrast with the monitor. The industrial design of the X70 should work better, since it is more black / gray. If your wall is white, the E70 will probably fade into the background; against a colored wall, it's going to burst, and not in an attractive way. (Most of the cameras I test are black or gray, and they seem to work better in modern offices.) Ideally, as a platform independent reseller, Poly should have an advantage, since it is in the best interest of the company to work on each and every platform. Unfortunately, you can't.
The downside of provider foreclosure
As noted, there's one huge downside with this and all the others in this space: none of them can switch between platforms on the fly. Companies tend to rely on more than one conference room alternative; Most of the time, these are Microsoft Teams (disclosure: Microsoft is a customer of the service) and Zoom for large meetings. Although Poly hardware only works with Zoom, once certified, it can be reconfigured to work with Teams. (At this point, forget about Webex or any other conference room solution.) This inconvenience is not Poly's fault; Vendors don't seem to understand current market trends for open source and interoperability, nor do they understand that communication devices need to work with each other. Apple phones can call Samsung phones, for example, without changing modes. Although companies can select a vendor by default, it's not likely that they will be able to dictate what their service customers, investors, or vendors will use. The solution is to connect the camera to a computer, since a computer can change provider; However, even a computer cannot connect a source from one vendor like Zoom to another like Microsoft Teams. Ideally, just like with phones, you should have one number for any connected conference rooms. On top of this, whatever hardware you have, you should be able to call that number and conference in as many places as possible, just like you would on your phone.
What is needed now: regulation
Today, the video conferencing market is supported by the business response to the current Covid-XNUMX pandemic. This forces most meetings to be remote, but if people return to the office, this segment will likely shrink again due to the lack of interoperability. This is nonsense. This reduces the effectiveness and value of these solutions by making the connection between service customers, investors, partners and distributors much more difficult than it should be, and by limiting cooperation between companies and agencies, governments on different platforms. . An essential carrier like AT&T or an essential carrier like Microsoft could enter this segment and have it done simply by creating a hardware independent back-end and also incorporating a penetration cost strategy. And we're just waiting for an essential government, like the US government, to set a standard that ensures interoperability. I would remove the fringe players now. Until the interop issue is resolved, I can't advise any non-PC conference room solution, as at least one PC will work and switch between most vendors.
<p>Copyright © dos mil veintiuno IDG Communications, Inc.</p>
polytechnic school El Poly Studio E70. The camera demo featured passable 4K resolution, nice transitions (fade in and out) between modes, and pan and zoom that seemed impressively fast. These are designed for medium to large conference rooms, primarily those set up in a room-length rectangle behind the camera. I am not a fan of the off white E70 as most conference room monitors are black and this will contrast with the monitor. The industrial design of the X70 should work better, since it is more black / gray. If your wall is white, the E70 will probably fade into the background; against a colored wall, it's going to burst, and not in an attractive way. (Most of the cameras I test are black or gray, and they seem to work better in modern offices.) Ideally, as a platform independent reseller, Poly should have an advantage, since it is in the best interest of the company to work on each and every platform. Unfortunately, you can't.