Zoom announces a $599 touchscreen device for remote workers
theverge.com
theverge.com
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/jim-chanos-says-beware-the-v...
Will people really want this monstrosity around post-pandemic? I hope we can somehow miraculously get back to normal work just as this device enters the market in August, and we will have an epic failure called DTEN ME (which sounds like "detain me") as a cautionary tale.
Okay... from TechCrunch: "not Bluetooth".
Also it says it emits from "18 and 22 kHz" which "most people can't hear". Um, most adults. 18-22 kHz is DEFINITELY audible to teenagers and children. Or how about a dog! On the flipside, insects don't like hypersonic frequencies either, maybe I'll get less bites. Anyone remember mosquito ringtones blaring during class where the teacher would not even notice? That's how they get kids to quit loitering. So that might be a benefit for the WFH parent. This is what they use to see babies so imagine what it can see beyond your camera.
I already know from using ultrasonic devices that I can hear this. They're loud and sound weird.
From my understanding, frequencies in that range also interfere with hearing aids, monitors, and smart devices. In my head I'm like oh man, a bigger microphone array is going to make harvesting that audio data so much sweeter, that's a huge value proposition! If those devices are vulnerable to 'dolphin' attacks, or inaudible commands, this is yet another security concern.
I wonder if they'll include support to map the acoustics and layout of your room through sound detection for projection optimization. Scary and enticing. This seems like a reasonably well designed tool that can either make my life more productive or help destroy it simultaneously. I mean if it's covered as an office expense, it's better than opting for webcam, monitor, microphone, speakers in a more svelte package.
Apologies if this comment seems par for the norm to hate on Zoom. I'm actively trying to give them the benefit of the doubt to balance discussion here, but some of these choices are specifically bad.
I'm in my 40s and can still hear into that range so it's definitely not an edge case.
I definitely notice that any jammers or sound-cancelling devices interfere with my connectivity though. And I can imagine that if that's the case here, people may not be able to use their favorite noise-cancelling headphones with this monitor.
I think from an engineering perspective for compatibility, probably not using Bluetooth is good to separate concerns? In my experience Bluetooth is iffy, randomly connects all the time, requires fussy configuration and sometimes imposes maximums on how many devices can be connected (like if I use 5 bluetooth devices it turns off my wifi, not sure how that happens but now I know). I absolutely hate using it to pair with anything.
I think 18kHz children can barely hear, I don't think they can hear above that.
The mosquito ringtones were usually lower than that.
I don't disagree with your other points, but I suspect that frequency range won't be detected.
Lighting occupancy sensors are the worst.
And yes, I've had my hearing tested, and I am in fact, a freak.
It's rather common to assume that a good share of the adult population is near deaf.
A few years ago I went to a restaurant with outside sitting near Big Sur. There was a nearly unbearable high pitch whine of which most other guests seemed blissfully unaware. I asked a waiter about it and he informed me, that they recently installed a system to shoo away birds from the tables. I think they also shooed away quite a few customers.
I don't think it's outrageous to claim that this is the comfortable range for most adults who experience some kind of hearing loss over time with age.
Children most definitely can hear above 20khz. I at least have the anecdotal experience ("most" here is keyword to argue against) that I experimented with testing ultrasonic frequencies on multiple devices to see if audio file formats made any discernible difference in range performance. This involved "swooping" a frequency starting at 20hz to as high as you can emit it (which usually starts to sputter in consistency around 18kHz.
I'm 38 and I made it up to almost 20khz before I couldn't hear a tone.
Seems to be the perfect use case for them "It also syncs with your calendar and displays your upcoming meetings in a menu. (You can tap one to jump in.)"
I‘m afraid that putting a teleconferencing app on a separate device will make it easier to add distracting or privacy invading features.
I wouldn’t want to keep this thing always on and let anyone connect anytime.
Sure, it's probably overkill for most people. But then again, my laptop is overkill for most people and even for me 90% of the time, but i like having something powerful for that 10%. If i were in meetings all day, or even if I had a few meetings where my role was particularly important (e.g. a professor who is going to be giving lectures via zoom) i'd definitely shell out for something like this (and i bet my employer would too).
Can it be used as a stand alone device with no other hardware?
I really miss sharing a big whiteboard with coworkers. Any chance this can replace that experience?
The Facebook portal is excellent and has basically no competition anywhere close to its price, but it requires use of Facebook (or Whatsapp).
I just want a decent camera/mic set up to attach to computer that's connected to my TV and all of the options are extremely expensive and thoroughly mediocre . I ended up getting the Logitech Meetup which required the proprietary expansion mic to work well enough in a relatively small room and was over one thousand dollars. The 'right sight' software still doesn't work.
The Zoom product is also a miss to me, I just want a decent room scale mic and camera to attach to a TV and use for videoconferencing. The Portal includes computing hardware and software to make calls, but really that's a bonus. The MeetUp is just a dumb camera/mic that requires a computer (which for me is perfect, I can use any video conferencing application that I want), the non-portal products that include compute hardware are usually around two thousand dollars.
At least this is more reasonable priced.
Konftel cameras also work, just limit yourself to 1080p unless your TV has USB 3.0.
You can run zoom directly from a web client without installing anything, and the app is trivial to install on Mac, windows and Linux. Both methods work fine on my Chromebook which I bought for $200 5 years ago, both in ChromeOS or booted to GalliumOS (Ubuntu really).
I don't understand who this product is intended for. if you're a remote worker you have to have a computer. $600 is more than enough for a webcam, good USB mic and an extra monitor, with leftover for a nice steak dinner out with the wife.
That's not even mentioning Zoom's questionable history with privacy...
Yes, but will it still be easy to use? I'd wished there would be a standard way to encode voice, so that various applications, devices and service providers were compatible. You know, like phone service used to be ...
Hang on a minute... their partner manufactured hardware product is easier to setup than their own software?
How hard is it to install on the major OSes?
Seems like a strange angle.
Of course this hinges heavily on the quality of the user's WLAN / internet connection.
You know what would be better? A Roku-type device meant to sit on top of any old monitor/TV with integrated microphone/speakers/camera and HDMI out. With support for bluetooth headsets and or HDMI audio out maybe.
This feels like a joint marketing stunt more than a new product.
Looks like they make a bunch of conferencing things?
On the specs sheet it does have an HDMI in, so I'd assume you can use it like a display, and share the input? It doesn't appear to be highlighted anywhere though.
and to most of us, but i imagine that most people aren't in the target market. My university outfitted all new lecture halls built in the last ~20 years with professional grade video recording equipment, most likely for thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. By comparison, $599 for professors giving lectures via zoom seems like a bargain if the sound and video quality are substantially better than an ipad.
For the rest of us, we'll most likely continue with our phones, laptops, cheap webcams and ipads.
If it's an "appliance" -- e.g., no official support for installing other software -- then the specs aren't really important.
The question would be how well does it work as a video conferencing device, regardless of specs.