Vendors seem to be champing at the bit in the video conferencing space. Is their persistence paying off? Some recent digging around suggests that the technology is gaining traction both officially and unofficially. We asked around 200 people involved in workforce communication and collaboration about their official and …
Video conferencing generally is harder to set up (both ends require specialised equipment,, often in a special room, which needs booking so requires more paperwork). Audio conferences on the other hand can be joined by multiple people, each with nothing more unusual than the phone on their desk, or their mobile - booking a room with a conference phone is optional for the user if required.
In addition, the latencies on video calls can make them as painful to follow as audio conferences. TBH I'm surprised you see such a takeup of video conferencing in your survey. The question which apparently wasn't asked was 'what proportion of your conference calls are audio, and what proportion video'. I'd be surprised if this suggested anywhere near parity between audio and video.
Depends how many people you need in your conference. 4? Get them all Macs...
There#'s a much more powerful factor - people don't like using it...
I've seen several video conferecing pilots where the camera ends up pushed against the wall and people just use the system for voice. My experience is that a lot of people just aren't comfortable with their picture on the screen.
Why travel instead?
You forgot to mention one other reason people want to travel instead of video conference... For all the activities after the talk. (wink wink)
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- Samsung Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner hacked in just 4 DAYS
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- AMD demos 'Berlin' Opteron, world's first heterogeneous system architecture server chip