If FaceTime (or mobile video calling) interests you, then you might want to consider spending a bit of time on reading the list of resources I’ve collected from all over the web about FaceTime. And, even if you are not the reading type, you should definitely join our new upcoming webinar titled Realizing “FaceTime” on Android Devices.

I’ll be presenting on this webinar along with Amit Lavi, Product Manager for our client technologies for developers. Together we will try to explain:

• What are the building blocks that make up a mobile video telephony service?
• What are the challenges and technologies associated with launching such a service?
• How can this be done with Google’s Android operating system?
• And of course – what RADVISION has to offer in this regard

The webinar is free, so register to join. I will be more than happy to answer any question you might have in the webinar. You can also ask questions in the comments are on this post or tweet them over, and I will do my best to address them here as well as during the webinar.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• Notables: Mobile Video Telephony and Telepresence (0)
• FaceTime Roundup: Posts From The Web (0)
• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• 4 Ways Apple Can Improve Their FaceTime Video Calling Service (2)
• Why Android? (4)

There is though a huge install base that is being neglected here, which is the one that does mobile video telephony over 3G networks using 3G-324M. It has been around for years now, running across continents, operators and handset vendors. You can read more about its past and future at Vision Mobile.

A few years ago, I was the project leader in RADVISION responsible to develop our own 3G-324M solution for developers. Our main competitor at the time was Dilithium Networks. Soon enough, a main concern in the industry was raised about the call setup times and our competition moved to deal with this topic, where each company came up with fresh ideas on a weekly basis on how to solve the issue. Technologies were named in various ways: Multiple NSRP, WNSRP, FSS, Answer Fast, ACN, CAN, ACP, FM, SPC, MCP, MONA and the list goes on.

The competition we had with Dilithium Networks was never an easy one, but it got us to improve what we did for our customers: offer new technologies, optimize performance and footprint for mobile devices, come up with specific documentation for handset certification processes. Dilithium has done the same.

For me, hearing that they have decided to close some of their offices – mainly the one in India was sad news.

While I would certainly miss this fierce competition, I am sure that others will take their place. Especially as the industry of mobile video telephony is now moving on to a world of multiple solutions:

• It can be hosted by the operator using “good old” 3G-324M.
• It can be provided by third party downloadable applications such as Skype or Fring.
• It can be provided and managed by the handset vendors over IP – Apple’s FaceTime as a first example.
• It can be provided over IP by other over-the-top vendors.

This variety will bring with it a set of new companies that will offer handset vendors different types of solutions. Which ones will succeed is yet to be seen.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• Standards Doesn’t Mean Interoperability (0)
• Notables: Mobile Video Telephony and Telepresence (0)
• What Does The iPhone OS 4.0 Video Chat Rumors Mean (0)
• FaceTime Roundup: Posts From The Web (0)

Instead of spending my time thinking of what else to write about this new service, here are a few interesting posts that I have found in the blogosphere about it. I hope they will interest you as much as they have interested me.

Stuart Henshall’s FaceTime series

Stuart Henshall decided to write a few posts on FaceTime on his blog Unbound Spiral:

He debuted his series with a short introductory post titled How Important is FaceTime? Do You Need a FaceTime Strategy?

In FaceTime – Has Apple Suckered the Operators Again? Stuart writes a lot on what FaceTime is, how is it better than Skype, what are its shortcomings and what are the implications of it on other handset vendors and on enterprises.

And then comes the post that goes into the gritty details of how and why Apple’s FaceTime strategy is hurting operators (and Skype, which in a way is an operator) and what will likely happen to the competition – mainly Nokia and Google.

His next post is about the impact on enterprises assuming Apple will take FaceTime and make it into a real mobile VoIP offering.

The last post in this series is a bit different. In it Stuart states that FaceTime doesn’t change a lot in favor of mobile video telephony, but has broader implications when it comes to telephony itself.

Packetstan Protocol Analysis

Packetstan is a new blog dealing with analysis of IP based communication. Josh Wright, one of its members, have written a series of 3 posts on the internals of the FaceTime protocol. A word of warning – these posts are highly technical and detailed.

Part 1: an initial assessment by “sniffing” the network

Part 2: analysis of the protocols in use

Part 3: proprietary initial call setup analysis

I can’t wait to read the next post on this series once it gets published.

iConverged, IMTC and FaceTime’s Protocol

If Paketstan’s analysis is a bit too much for you, then you might want to look at a few other lightweight posts on this:

RADVISION’s Anatoli Levine’s post on the IMTC’s blog, where he outlines and explains the various protocols used by FaceTime.

Arjun Roychowdhury’s post on iConverged. He does a good job in clarifying the standards-based part of FaceTime.

TalkStandards on FaceTime Closed System and Open Standards

Ajit Jaokar has written about open and closed several times already. On TalkStandards he looks at what Apple did with FaceTime and open standards in order to build a closed system. A nice read for those looking to develop a standardized solution and a reminder to all that standards don’t mean interoperability.

Andy Abramson’s View of FaceTime and Carriers

Andy Abramson on his VoIP Watch blog talks about Apple ID and how it is going to hurt carriers. I’d say that if FaceTime as a service catches up – it will be interesting to see how carriers will respond.

GigaOm’s Coverage of FaceTime and iPhone 4

GigaOm has a large number of posts about the iPhone 4, but a few relate specifically to FaceTime and are really worth mentioning.

Adam Jackson does a good job with his ruminations of FaceTime’s effect on the video conferencing market and what Apple needs to do next with this service (open it up).

Steve Cheney wrote a guest post on how Apple’s vertical integration allowed them to bring FaceTime to bear. It gives some good background as to where Apple are headed and how hard it will be for other handset vendors to play catch-up. I’ve written a follow up post on this one with my own views.

Ryan Lawler has a FaceTime etiquette post on NewTeeVee which brought me back in time 5 years and more – when we started developing 3G-324M mobile video telephony solutions in RADVISION. Nothing changed besides the fact that now Americans are thinking about mobile video telephony etiquette when it the past it was a European thing.

While not exactly a “FaceTime-post”,Ryan Lawler’s recent post about Skype’s IPO and the video chat angle of it should probably be in your reading list if you are interested in FaceTime or FaceTime-like services.

TechCrunch and the Missing Presence Functionality

MG Siegler writes a lot about the iPhone, and there are many more posts about FaceTime on TechCrunch. An interesting one to note is that of FacePlant – an application that adds presence support to Facetime, allowing users to know beforehand if they can video call their friends.

To me this is simply a missing feature that had to go with the service when it launched. Not because I like presence based dialing so much, but because of the many restrictions: only iPhone 4 users, only over WiFi – you can’t rely on people trying out to see if it works and then… it doesn’t.

IntoMobile on How Good is FaceTime

IntoMobile has several posts about FaceTime, but the one that strikes me the most is the recording of a call made using FaceTime from a yacht in the middle of the ocean.

The end result video is a bit crappy – probably due bad reception and low bandwidth over the satellite like. It is where I am sure things can be improved with a little more attention to the latest and greatest in video coding techniques.

It is worthwhile to note that Apple have opted in their error concealment mechanism to drop bad frames instead of decoding them – at least this is what I can ascertain from looking at the video recording.

The New York Times Gadgetwise

Jenna Wortham on the New York Times Gadgetwise blog talks about her own experience with FaceTime. While she does think the experience is satisfying and exciting she does have a few complaints as well as a general question that I find rather interesting:

“But while FaceTime is undeniably remarkable, is anyone actually using it?

I’ve had the iPhone 4 since its debut in late June, and chatting with my cat was the first time I’ve been able to use FaceTime.”

TheNextWeb and FaceTime

Zee M Kane, the editor in chief of The Next Web. While TNW has a few posts on FaceTime, the one that resounds the most is Zee’s own post on the fact that there’s no real reason to upgrade from the iPhone 3GS. Not even for the new mobile video services:

“and then there’s Face Time which despite it’s awful name is awesome. But you’ll probably only use Facetime once until it works on 3G and there’s interoperability between Face Time and other non Apple handsets.”

Silicon Alley Insider

If you want to get some impressions of other people about FaceTime, then Dan Frommer of Silicon Alley Insider comes with their chart of the day on what people love and hate about the iPhone 4.

As a spoiler, I can say that FaceTime is liked by iPhone users – it it’s not their top priority.

Some of our own writing

There are also a few posts written in RADVISION’s blogs:

Sagee Ben-Zedeff tried to understand how open FaceTime really is (or isn’t). He also wrote a great post covering the launch and the non-Magical facts about FaceTime.

And my own writing?

• Why I should now eat my hat
• How open is FaceTime?
• FaceTime and how this is going to affect the Android handset vendors
• 4 ways for Apple to improve FaceTime

And if you are contemplating adding video calling on your own, you should probably also consider these 5 facts about IP-based mobile video telephony.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• VoIP from around the net: May 21, 2009 (0)
• 5 Facts About IP-Based Mobile Video Telephony (0)
• Standards Doesn’t Mean Interoperability (0)
• Why Video Calling isn’t a Web Browser Feature? (5)

I have joined RADVISION in 1999 and if you take out my 4 years detour at other places I’m around this industry for some time now. During these years we have had the pleasure to compete with rival companies. This has always been a great catalyst for us and the industry pushing everyone to innovation and differentiation. In many areas we have been first to market and innovative. Along the years we have seen companies enter this market of VoIP developer solutions, some have disappeared, others were acquired and changed their focus and some continue to play in this market bringing customers the option for choice.

In this scope we see a news alert and blog post from TMC with regards to Dilithium Networks as well as indications that Dilithium’s customers are searching for alternatives. One example is taken from the Economic Times in India:

“We were in the final stages of closing a project using Dilithium’s technology. Now I have to look for other alternatives”.

So if you are one of those Dilithium customers currently looking for 3G-324M alternatives, we have built a transition plan specifically for you.

Transition Plan Details

1. Open for all Dilithium Networks customers
2. RADVISION products included in this plan are:
   1. 3G-324M Toolkit
   2. 3G Video Telephony Application
   3. ProLab 3G-324M Testing Solution
   4. SCOPIA 3G Video Gateway
3. Limited time discount* for these products until the end of September 2010
4. Consulting and R&D assistance services for building and executing a smooth migration path to RADVISION technology

For more information and pricing please email us at replacedilithium@radvision.com

* Discounts apply for off-the-shelf products only. Discounts for customization, support and maintenance are not included in this offering. Binding pricing will be based on an official RADVISION quote only.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• With FaceTime, Apple gets a real advantage over its Android competition (0)
• Notables: Mobile Video Telephony and Telepresence (0)
• Mobile Video Calls Explained – at Luca Filigheddu’s Blog (0)
• How Open is iPhone’s FaceTime? (2)

I’ve seen a bunch of webinars, whitepapers and other articles about how FaceTime-like services can be integrated by other handset vendors. Usually, these resources focus on a single piece of the puzzle – the media codecs or some other important part of the solution.

The problem is that FaceTime is a bit more complex than throwing a few protocols into an application. This is why I decided to bring up 5 facts about building FaceTime-like services:

1. Mobile video telephony requires knowledge in media processing

This one should be simple enough. For mobile video telephony you need more than a video codec. Everything goes over IP networks, and in the case of mobile – over the air. This means interruptions which translate into packet loss. You need to be able to deal with packet loss and the varying conditions of the network. Such handling is not done only on the codec level, but require some media processing “magic” which usually takes place on the Media Engine layer right above the codecs.

2. Mobile video telephony is a hosted service

Guess what? You will need a server to run the service for you.

Having the codecs or even the media done on the phone is useless if you can’t connect to anyone, and connecting to others means being able to register on a server that is located somewhere on the internet and being able to dial through that server.

And while having a service is nice, who exactly is going to be the one providing it? The handset vendor? The service provider? Some other third party?

While Apple can definitely go and build their own service, can any single Android vendor do the same? Will he have enough handsets on the market to make it worthwhile?

3. Mobile video telephony has NATs to deal with

NATs, or Network Address Translators, are what devices that connect to WiFi will usually require. To make a long story short – video telephony uses multiple, dynamic IP addresses, which makes it prone to NAT traversal – they need special mechanisms to pass NATs properly.

So now you need codecs, some media processing “magic”, signaling to go with it, a service – and a NAT traversal solution.

4. Mobile video telephony is all about interoperability

I touched it earlier on the hosted service issue, but it needs to be said aloud – FaceTime is nice, but without some kind of connectivity to other video telephony services of other vendors it is bound to fail.

People should not be forced to remember which phone brand (and type) each of their friends has and decide on how to dial to them according to that. It needs to be as simple as a voice call – you dial, you get connected, you video chat. And that requires some serious interoperability and interworking.

5. Mobile video telephony is about the enterprise

Yes. It’s nice to call your grandmother with video. Or your kids. But the true value of video telephony is in the enterprise – in communicating and collaborating with others. And for that, you need to be able to connect it to enterprise systems, which exist today.

You might want to have video telephony hosted on your own, but even if you do – you need a kind of a plan on how this is going to be connected to the enterprise PBX and its video telephony infrastructure, which by the way, is probably using other signaling standards.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• FaceTime Roundup: Posts From The Web (0)
• The Missing Link of Video Calling (7)
• Notables: Mobile Video Telephony and Telepresence (0)
• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• Standards Doesn’t Mean Interoperability (0)

No. it will not be enough. We’re still talking about communication islands.

If you look at the state of VoIP today, it is pretty safe to say that it is growing nicely. It might not be apparent at first sight, but the reason it does is the ubiquity of PSTN. And that is the heart of the matter – we don’t have the same ubiquity for video calling.

Skype is a huge success. Why? Not because you can call friends on Skype, but because you can make international calls with it using Skype Out service. And you can do that because of PSTN.

Same goes for Google Voice.

The glue that sticks everything together here is PSTN:

1. It provides a ubiquitous network that you can also gateway with to route calls between services.
2. It provides a nicely built international global numbering plan, so you can dial everyone.

How the hell will you be calling from FaceTime to Skype with a video call?

How will you be calling from your office to another company? Do you both need to use the same protocol? Register to the same server or configure the servers to know each other?

That’s the problem with video over IP – as a VoIP industry, we’ve been so focused on finding solutions to connecting systems through servers and building networks and doing interoperability that we forgot the big picture – to build an international network with a true dialing plan – be it URIs, numbers, email addresses or whatnot.

There are a lot who say that Apple should open up FaceTime for external access – I am one of them. But will that help? What would that mean?

Will Nokia provide calling services to Apple devices? What about Android phones coming from multiple vendors? Or Blackberries? And then let’s take it a step further – how do I dial from Android to Nokia, or to Skype users?

There is no lowest common denominator that can be used.

For voice calling there’s always PSTN: you can ridicule it, its prices, its inefficiency, the fact that it doesn’t support HD voice – but you can trust it to be there to connect you to virtually anyone.

It is time we start thinking of video as a global universal service and not as a niche for enterprises or internet companies – Apple included.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• 5 Facts About IP-Based Mobile Video Telephony (0)
• What Does The iPhone OS 4.0 Video Chat Rumors Mean (0)
• Standards Doesn’t Mean Interoperability (0)
• SIP PBX Implementation, Part I: To Relay or Not to Relay – That is the Question (0)
• Notables: Mobile Video Telephony and Telepresence (0)

The audio quality is great. The video is more than adequate for a mobile device. And that portrait/landscape shtick is cool in a geeky way.

But, as always in this case, Apple can improve.

Here are a few ideas for Apple to improve FaceTime in their next iOS:

1. Support for backdrops

The iPhone is definitely a consumer device. As such, it should support all of the shticks that kids will love. That includes the backdrops effect that is part of Apple’s iChat software for the Mac OS X.

2. Interoperability

Talking about the iChat… it would be really nice if FaceTime would interoperate with other services out there. iChat would be a good start – coming from the same company, it would make sense. But how about a bit of SIP – H.323 love? FaceTime already supports SIP, but a weirdish flavor of it – it would make sense to play nice with the rest of the video calling market and just implement the guidelines set forth by the IMTC’s SIP Parity activity group.

3. Presence based dialing

The sad thing about FaceTime is that you can’t really know if you can do a video call with your iPhone, without first checking if your partner to the call also has his iPhone 4 on him AND that he is currently connected to WiFi.

One of the reasons why mobile video telephony hasn’t succeeded to begin with was the lack of knowledge if a video call is going to succeed or fail. Same goes for the iPhone.

Apple should add some presence information to the iPhone, either by adding SIMPLE or opting for XMPP (I don’t really care). That will allow them to disable the FaceTime button on the phone, if they know in advance that the call isn’t going to succeed.

Just getting my first call using FaceTime required my colleague to start searching for one of his “iPhone friends” and checking if they are connected, reachable and WiFied. Too much work for a call.

4. Using the 3G network

I must admit that WiFi is nice, but it is far from enough.

Wouldn’t it be nice if FaceTime actually worked over the cellular network as well? It would give more coverage, even if at the expense of some of the video quality it provides.

-

Stuart Henshall wrote on his blog, Unbound Spiral, a thought provoking post about FaceTime. In his post, he also mentions what he thinks can be improved in FaceTime, as well as other issues related to this service – it’s a post worth reading.

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• Standards Doesn’t Mean Interoperability (0)
• Notables: Mobile Video Telephony and Telepresence (0)
• FaceTime Roundup: Posts From The Web (0)
• Join our Free Webinar: Realizing FaceTime on Android Devices (0)

The first group of questions I want to tackle are those concerning H.323 and SIP:

• How important is H.323 for video telephony vs. SIP? Which one should I use?
• Using SIP and H.323 is a matter of market segment, not a technical decision – correct?

A short history of video telephony protocols

When I came to RADVISION about 12 years ago, RADVISION was dealing with H.323 – a signaling protocol for multimedia communications. We had our version 2-something of the H.323 stack with most of the market using our solution.

As time went by, I remember people starting to argue that we need to do SIP as well – a protocol that started at about the same time as H.323, but didn’t gain too much traction up to that point. We took the plunge as a company, and developed our SIP stack as well, providing developers with both signaling protocols.

I remember the amount of discussions and debates in the industry on which protocol is better – SIP or H.323. There were a lot of comparisons to be found on the internet, most weren’t correct; comparing old versions of H.323 to the latest and greatest of SIP and vice versa.

To tell you the truth – on the protocol level, you can do everything with both SIP and H.323. None of them is superior, and whatever one of the protocols is missing is easy to augment and correct.

The actual decision of which protocol to use is based on market demand and not on any technical superiority of one protocol over the other.

State of the market

If you look at what goes on in today’s deployments, you will see a very strict split between the use of H.323 and SIP:

• H.323 is used in enterprises for video conferencing systems.
• SIP is used for internet telephony voice services.

While H.323 is the protocol of choice these days for video conferencing, it is worth noting that most video conferencing products being sold today support both SIP and H.323. The companies who deploy them are mostly using H.323, but they can decide to use SIP as well.

In most of my dealings with video service providers the main protocol of choice is H.323. In some specific cases it is SIP. I expect SIP to play a more dominant part of deployments in the future, but it will take time to get there.

If you are purchasing a new video conferencing system, make sure that it not only supports H.323 and SIP, but that it can use both in the same product simultaneously, selecting the protocol to use as required. Why? Simply because, as we move forward, deployments are bound to start using SIP more, bringing with it deployments that will need to support both protocols.

If you are developing a video product – make sure it supports multiple protocols and interoperates well in both H.323 and SIP.

Some more resources you might like

• The future of H.323
• Using SIP for video telephony

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• VoIP Clients Should Have Multi-Platform Support (0)
• Time For Visual Communications With SIP (0)
• The challenges of testing Unified Communication products (and/or hosting a SuperOp event) (4)
• Server Side Interworking Sucks (3)
• How Open is iPhone’s FaceTime? (2)

But there is something that FaceTime does for Apple that all the rest of its innovations in the latest release don’t: it separates it from the pack of Android devices.

Think back on Apple’s previous moves:

• With the iPod Apple changed the music players industry, but besides a cool device design they also had the iTunes store – something that linked their customers back to them via a service.
• With the iPhone it changed the smartphone landscape, but besides a cool device design they added the AppStore – something that again linked their customers back to them via a service.

But the iPhone advantage of the AppStore is gone. Android has the Android Market, and all of the Android devices being sold these days have the same set of capabilities, so it’s no surprise that when I take out my phone (Nexus One), people sometimes ask me if this is the iPhone. When I say that it’s the “Google phone”, then they usually answer – “so you do have an iPhone”. For them – both are the same. You can argue that the iPhone is slicker or that an Android device is more open, but in the end of the day they are quite comparable.

For Apple this meant that in iPhone 4 they had to do something radically different to set it apart of the crowd again:

• Retina display? Some of them Androids have AMOLEDs.
• Multitasking? Android has it already.
• HD video? Froyo 2.2 enabled that in existing Android devices.
• 5 megapixel camera with LED flash? That’s so 2009.

But then there is FaceTime.

FaceTime – Apple’s next cloud service for the iPhone

And Apple had to make it different, so it chose not to go with a 3G-324M circuit switching solution – this won’t allow them to increase the bandwidth used and by that improve resolution and frame rate. The other reason not to choose 3G-324M is the fact that interoperable solution in this case wouldn’t offer it any differentiation.

So Apple decided for an all-IP solution, one that it would fully control and own – something running over the WiFi network instead of the cellular network. It gives Apple a service of its own to offer to its customer base – something that will be hard for any single Android handset vendor to achieve.

What will an Android handset vendor have to do next?

• It can try to go it alone and offer its own full service – something I don’t think will happen.
• It can wait for Google to provide a solution of its own built into Android. Something that does Google Talk video. It would be nice, and it would be interesting to see if this happens what mobile operators will have to say about that.
• It can pre-install a third party application, like the new version of Fring, to do the work for it. I assume such a solution will never get to the same quality of experience and media quality of a built-in solution.
• It can try to work with mobile operators to offer their own flavored video telephony service, which will probably be based on SIP.

If Apple’s FaceTime service is successful, and that is yet to be seen, then none of the above options will compete head-to-head with Apple in 2010 – which means that Apple gets to keep its lead through 2010 with a clear differentiator.

In 2011, with iPhone 5, Apple will need to find some other differentiator and also start thinking of interoperability for its FaceTime service.

[TBD - comic strip goes here]

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• Apple FaceTime for the iPhone (or: Why I Should Now Eat My Hat) (2)
• MediaTek and Our 3G-324M (0)
• VoIP Clients Should Have Multi-Platform Support (0)
• The 3 Biggest Challenges of Integrating 3G-324M into Android (1)
• Standards Doesn’t Mean Interoperability (0)

The premise of this webinar was that once people start developing an HD video communication terminal, they will focus on their “comfort zone” – mainly the hardware design and the codecs, and that, to say bluntly, isn’t nearly enough. We took off from there to some of the hidden challenges in the development process itself – things that would get forgotten or neglected along the road.

If there was anything that really surprised me during the webinar, it was the results of the first poll question we had:

People believe, even today, that resolution is the most important aspect of developing an HD video terminal. It is not the audio system and not the overall experience and ease of use – it’s the resolution. It brought me a few years back when resolutions war really took place. I actually believed we were over this, but it seems I was wrong.

There were a lot of interesting questions during the session, and we weren’t able to deal with them all. I’ll probably use them as ideas for a few of the posts that will get published here in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

You can view this challenges in developing HD video communication terminals webinar online if this topic interests you, and if you already have, then here are a few of the pointers we’ve provided during the webinar:

• Our BEEHD product page, for those developing HD videophones
• The post series about how to develop hardware for HD video communications
• Information on our SVC technology

I have also embedded here the slides for your enjoyment:

Download your free eBook guide on Video Conferencing, the Enterprise and You. Post from: Video over Enterprise

Related posts

• What Makes our BEEHD Video Codec Different? (6)
• How to Select the Best Chip for Your Video Coding? (0)
• Why NOW is THE Time for Visual Communications? (0)
• Why Is Designing HD Video Endpoint Hardware So Hard? (1)
• Why Hardware Trumps Software for Visual Communications (0)