Graphics cards

• Yoorah wrote on 2011-12-15 02:41
  I don't know about that particular product, but a lot of strangely-overpriced pieces of equipment pay for themselves and then some when you're dealing with business. :P
  
  The best example I can think of is Cisco's TelePresense 3000 solution. It's basically a fancy webcam setup:
  

  [Image: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8548/ciscotelepresence30002.jpg]

  
  Cost, including installation? $200,000
  When I tested it at Cisco's office, it was pretty darn awesome. Felt like meeting people for real, almost. Incomparable to a typical webcam thingy... Then they told me the price tag and I was like, ........... D8 ....
  
  But in reality, the thing's meant to replace non-critical executive trips, saving a lot of money over a year in business class air fare, hotel and productivity time that would otherwise be lost. The thing can pay for itself in ~2 years. :P
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2011-12-15 02:53
  Hmm, is it really "needed" in any way though? Like, couldn't a $2,000 setup do basically the same thing with a little loss of quality and save $198,000?
  
  I'm just sayin, $2,000 will buy you an awfully nice webcam setup with incredibly clear quality.
  
  Perhaps I'm just looking at it the wrong way. To some businesses, $198,000 might not be a big deal so long as it pays for itself, but it's still a lot of money.
  
  I have to say, it's really neat that you got to test something like that. I think if I tried, it would be both creepy and amazing to me at the same time if it's as clear as the picture leads me to believe... and if it costs that much, it better be. It's nearly at the point where it looks like a mirror. Blah, brb looking up videos of it for an hour.
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-12-15 02:55
  The fusion IO thing definitely pays for itself when it comes to very intensive database use. Since the biggest issue for databases is disk activity.
  
  One single server with a fusion IO card can probably replace a half rack (or possible more) of standard servers that were clustered together to serve up that same database. That's how ridiculous the read/write is on those things, not to mention there's no fragmentation to worry about. So you save on rack space, electric and cooling (which is usually more electric), and the hardware costs of all those servers.
  
  Just the hardware costs of a half rack of servers covers the Fusion IO, not to mention the cost of the space itself if you don't own your own datacenter.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-12-15 03:20

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;692820:

  Hmm, is it really "needed" in any way though? Like, couldn't a $2,000 setup do basically the same thing with a little loss of quality and save $198,000?
  
  I'm just sayin, $2,000 will buy you an awfully nice webcam setup with incredibly clear quality.
  
  Perhaps I'm just looking at it the wrong way. To some businesses, $198,000 might not be a big deal so long as it pays for itself, but it's still a lot of money.
  
  I have to say, it's really neat that you got to test something like that. I think if I tried, it would be both creepy and amazing to me at the same time if it's as clear as the picture leads me to believe... and if it costs that much, it better be. It's nearly at the point where it looks like a mirror. Blah, brb looking up videos of it for an hour.

  
  
  A $2,000 setup won't even come close to replicating a genuine boardroom meeting feeling. :P Those are 3 huge, high quality full HD screens, 3 video cameras and directional mics/speakers. Not to mention the equipment that ties it all together. And everything's aligned properly and planned in a way where the table on the screens looks like the physical extension of the real table you're sitting behind. I think even the wall paint is part of the spec, to ensure consistency. It's all done to re-create the atmosphere as close as possible to real life.
  
  And you gotta remember that that $200,000 also includes the installation cost, which if you'd have had to hire an outside contractor/consultant to do, could cost quite a lot just on its own.
  
  And even if you had the DIY skills to design, develop, build and install something like this within your own company, saving you, say, $150,000... there is a lot more risk compared to Cisco's proven and ready solution. If something goes wrong and the system isn't ready in time for a planned meeting with a potential customer, or if the system screws up during the meeting, your company's rep would go down the drain and you would quite possibly lose the client. A multi-million dollar deal sank because you thought you'd try to save $150k. I wouldn't want to be in that guy's shoes lolol.
  
  Of course, this is only useful for moderately large companies in the first place.
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-12-15 03:27
  We use skype and a 30$ webcam :fail3:
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2011-12-15 03:30
  All that's nice, but what you've essentially told me is that you're spending a lot of money to get clearer visuals and sound.
  
  My argument is essentially, does the improved quality warrant all that money? Does that really pay for itself? It's certainly cool, but is it going to make anyone think, "I should really go back here to do my deals because I like that thing"? Would a lesser quality product have any interference, other than not being quite as pretty?
  
  The answer is obviously yes, otherwise this product wouldn't exist in the first place, I just have trouble comprehending it. Then again, maybe the answer isn't yes. People buy million dollar cars when a $30K one will do an excellent job and provide quite a bit of comfort, too.
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-12-15 03:39
  I'm also not too sure how it works, are all your clients and branch offices expected to have this setup too? If none of the people you do business with have this solution installed on their end, what do you do with your 200k$ meeting room?
  
  I can only see this being practical for meetings within the same company with offices around the country/world, or for some 3rd party company to have setups like this around the world and rent them out to people for cheaper than the cost of travel/hotel.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-12-15 03:59
  Yea, I gave a bad example. That particular solution is more for increasing efficiency within your company, between different branch offices/HQ. The client example thing was just a general example in how a "ridiculously overpriced" but tested solution is worth it when you're doing srs bsns.
  
  @RebeccaBlack: In simple terms, you do get clearer visuals and sound. But you also get the planning an ergonomics that actually makes it feel like a real meeting. The solution cannot replace a live meeting unless the experience it provides is of sufficient quality. A $2000 solution won't be able to meet the requirements, so it's irrelevant and you can't make a comparison.
  
  And tbh, even this sophisticated and expensive system isn't used in high-profile meetings. When things really count, you cannot replace live interaction. :P
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2011-12-15 04:09
  I have trouble understanding how it feeling "real" adds anything, although I do understand how live interaction can help. With live interaction, things can physically be passed around and such and people can do things they can't with a camera.