Hi DMF and Thread, RE: "even when Intel takes a financial hit on their video-conferencing or camera ventures or some other tangent, management probably extracts useful information for their core business."
-------------------
Intel took a hit in videoconferencing because their product offering wasn't a good solution for the market. I have a contact that has been successful in the "new" video business, namely because he's solving what's called the network edge problem. So, some people have been able to be very successful (and successful by Wall Street standards too, which is a much higher bar than just having a good product). His company is successful because they are solving the right kind of industry problems. At the moment, Intel isn't, and this is probably because they got burned in the past by videoconferencing - they probably have a bit of a "knee-jerk reaction" to it. Sort of reminds me of the Newton, just before the Palm was released.
What I'm saying is, I don't think Barrett is on top of the videoconferencing industry. He's making judgements based upon Intel's own experience, which isn't current information - their stuff was rather out-dated. Nor did Intel's solution solve the industry issues that existed in the old, videoconferencing business, that other, newer firms are now addressing in the new, videoconferencing business (like my contact's company).
On top of this, Barrett's opinion is probably somewhat tainted by a bad experience with one of their significant partners whose name I won't mention (but it was an unsuccessful videoconferencing company that was previously successful in the old days of videoconferencing, but went downhill in a major way because they hit an industry barrier they never solved, etc. etc.). This is probably what formulates Barrett's opinion - two really bad experiences, in addition to not being plugged into the "brand-new", new videoconferencing market, which appears to be taking off (i.e. 65% growth) for those companies whose approaches are right.
So, the issue isn't videoconferencing, it's Intel's approach to videoconferencing.
There are 3 barriers to growth in (the old) videoconferencing solutions (bridge joke point, usability, network), which are now being tackled successfully by several companies.
Intel's just not one of them working on this new stuff. And this is somewhat ironic, because I suspect at some point, Intel will begin to realize that these industry solutions are being worked out for them, and are just now beginning to be commercialized from universities, into industry offerings that in turn will generate more chip revenue.
Nonetheless, I would concur that Intel should not enter this business, because they haven't proven to be successful in it. Let others, who have proven to be successful in it, solve the problem for them and for the industry as a whole.
Regards,
Amy J |
