
Chromebox, now for simpler and better meetings - slb
http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/02/chromebox-now-for-simpler-and-better.html
======
aiiane
It's only mentioned briefly in the blog post, but one of the biggest wins with
this system (and the aspect that I absolutely love when using it internally at
Google) is the simplicity of screen sharing into a meeting. Anyone who wants
to present can simply join the hangout from their laptop and then share their
screen. Not only does it mean you don't have to fuss with cables/adapters
(which can also break/wear out), it also means that if someone wants to share
something while someone else is presenting, you don't have to disconnect and
reconnect various computers; the other person just shares their screen as well
(and/or the first temporarily stops sharing their screen). It also means you
don't have to have dedicated rooms for presenters - someone in a remote office
can present from their laptop to a meeting room elsewhere.

Having a meeting that doesn't involve slides? The meeting organizer can just
throw up the meeting agenda with a click or two - or if it's in something like
a Google Doc, the meeting agenda can even be dynamic, with people adding
topics they want to visit as they determine them, and the organizer simply
working their way down the agenda as it grows. Add the agenda as an attachment
to the google calendar entry for the meeting and people can review/add to the
agenda ahead of time, and then look back at it after the meeting for a
reminder of what was covered.

~~~
bovermyer
See, that sounds awesome. However, my company uses Google Hangouts exclusively
for our weekly business meeting (owing to everyone being remote), but we can't
afford the price tag of the Chromebox.

If there was a cheaper (order of magnitude cheaper) version, we'd be
interested.

~~~
mjmahone17
$1000 for VC equipment is dirt cheap. I know Cisco's solution costs on the
order of $15k/set: [http://www.videoconferencingsupply.com/Cisco-
TelePresence-s/...](http://www.videoconferencingsupply.com/Cisco-
TelePresence-s/696.htm)

So even if you can't afford it, many, many more people will be able to afford
video conferencing with a price less than 10% that of standard solutions.

------
michaelbuckbee
I assure you that this is not a joke.

The best 'self-contained' video conference machine I've used in the last year
is:

1\. $400 less up front than the Chromebox

2\. Has an annual service fee $200 less than the Chromebox

3\. Has a camera with awesome built in face detection (if one person is in the
room it centers on their face, if three people are in it automatically expands
to fit them all in, if you wander around the room it follows + refocuses on
your face).

4\. Is voice controlled.

5\. Plays Lego Marvel Superheroes at 1080p.

The XBox One and their Skype integration is really well thought out and solves
most of the annoyances surrounding video conferencing, focal length, bad
speakerphone mics, etc. highly recommended.

~~~
higherpurpose
As usual, Google picks the Intel-solution over a cheaper solution for
political reasons (just like with the original Chromebooks, original Google
TV, etc), and ends up failing, because the price is not competitive in the
market for that type of product that it is.

~~~
kayoone
other solutions in this space (ex. Cisco) are much more expensive

------
cromwellian
Google has an internal version of this called GVC and it is hands down better
than any other system I've used. The interface is easy and intuitive to use,
and being able to screenshare/present is as simple as visiting a URL. No
installation of anything needed on the part of attendees.

Hangouts also allows widespread distribution, so for example, with the GWT
team's weekly meetings, we have sometimes recorded them, or broadcast them
live, and even invited external participants to watch and field questions.

You can also do things like run Hangouts Apps (Web Version), that lets people
collaborate on documents while having the meeting. We do this with design docs
or spreadsheets used for planning so that everyone on the video can edit what
we are all watching get presented.

Those complaining about the price are speaking from the standpoint of
consumers. For someone running a non-trivial business, paying $1000 to get
customer support is worth the trouble.

If Google weren't making any margin on this, then you'd have to worry about it
going away at some point. If you want a healthy assurance that it's going to
stick around, pay b2b rates.

~~~
eitally
The major sticking point for most companies are 1) they don't currently use
Google Apps, and 2) they don't want to allow employees to use any part of G+
_except_ Hangouts.

------
npongratz
My employer received a number of pre-release units for testing and feedback.
One of my coworkers reviewed it here: [http://blog.cdw.com/hands-on-with-
googles-new-chromebox-for-...](http://blog.cdw.com/hands-on-with-googles-new-
chromebox-for-meetings)

Edit: HN discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192940)

------
mortenjorck
Serious question, given that this solution appears to be: 1) based around
Google Hangouts, and 2) targeted at enterprise customers:

Does using it require Google Plus?

~~~
amaks
It requires a Google account. There is no such thing as Google Plus account.

~~~
reledi
It's not so simple in this case.

If you were to start a hangout via Gmail from your Google Apps account, you
get a dumbed down version that doesn't support features like screensharing and
up to 15 people.

You would need to use an account that has G+ connected and start the hangout
from the hangouts app or from G+. So I think yes, you would need a G+ account
to use this unless Google changes that.

------
VikingCoder
I don't get why this is so expensive. What's the $250 a year get me?

I'm used to Chromeboxes costing about $300, and web cams cost about $100 for
an awesome one. So, $400 makes sense to me...?

~~~
9to5Seth
Let's go shopping, shall we?

I recognize that Camera as a Logitech ($90)
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ATTIPZO?tag=thepartim-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B00ATTIPZO&adid=1NNSTPRYJANG77ZD3DP9&)

and that mic is a Jabra Speak 410 ($85)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ELA7TA?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393185&creativeASIN=B004ELA7TA&linkCode=shr&tag=thepartim-20)

And that remote looks like the one that comes with a Google TV ($40).

We know the ASUS Box starts at under $200.

I'll cut you a deal and sell it to you for $500?

~~~
telcodud
Not the Asus Chromebox that uses Intel Core i7.

~~~
nly
I can't fathom why this thing even needs such a high power CPU. Presumably
it's running Android, so why not go with ARM + a nice video coprocessor to
handle video?

------
radicalbyte
Chromebox for meetings.. have Google hired Microsoft's marketing department
from 2005?

~~~
ithkuil
What about "Chromebox for workgroups" ?

~~~
hexasquid
These days it's all about the Chromebox One.

------
etler
I was wondering where is all the money was going. It's clearly the newly
announced Asus Chromebox, which starts at $179[1]. I haven't seen the high end
price, but according to the spec sheet[2], the only difference is the CPU. The
price difference here is $820. I couldn't imagine the cost difference between
a celeron and a mid-range i7 to be much more than $300. That same camera is
$75 on amazon, and a similar looking speaker is $90, and I don't imagine a RF
remote is more than $15. That gets us to about $600, and leaves $220 for the
management and support fee.

So the hardware cost checks out, but the question is if their support and
software is worth $250 a year. They don't do a good job explaining what goes
into that though. Is the software a proprietary version of Chrome OS? Do you
get to use priority servers instead of the normal hangout ones? Does that
support fee cover all your chromeboxes, or is that per box? I feel a lot of
the value proposition isn't being well explained. If it's amazing quality, and
a great meeting experience, it can easily be worth it, but I'm not getting the
sense of how the experience is better than if you bought the components
yourself. A promo video demo would help.

[1][http://promos.asus.com/us/chrome-
os/chromebox/](http://promos.asus.com/us/chrome-os/chromebox/)

[2][http://www.asus.com/us/News/xjbJtLA1HEyUSUeo](http://www.asus.com/us/News/xjbJtLA1HEyUSUeo)

[3][http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Widescreen-Calling-
Rec...](http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Webcam-Widescreen-Calling-
Recording/dp/B006JH8T3S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391721781&sr=8-1&keywords=hd+camera)

[4][http://www.amazon.com/Jabra-SPEAK-510-Bluetooth-
Softphone/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Jabra-SPEAK-510-Bluetooth-
Softphone/dp/B00AQUO5RI/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1391721826&sr=8-10&keywords=conference+microphone+speaker)

~~~
will_work4tears
Hopefully the 250 a month includes a customer support phone line or at least a
chat room. Might be almost worth getting one of these just for that. Google
isn't known for it's customer support.

~~~
moreati
$250 per year, not per month.

~~~
will_work4tears
Oops, mistype. I realized that just didn't type it right. Thanks.

------
akama
If this is comparable to the Chromecast in terms of ease of use and simplicity
while still being able to be a functional product with the features companies
need, I could see this being very popular.

I love how simple the Chromecast is, it allows everybody to work it with no
hassle. I hope this product also accomplishes that goal.

------
joebo
As a remote worker, I could see getting something like this for our central
office. I need an almost frictionless solution and this sounds pretty close
"walk into the room, click the remote once and you’re instantly in the
meeting." My coworkers aren't interested in walking into a conference room
with their laptop and sending a hangout. It would be useful if it supported
multiple cameras somehow - which might break the hangout model. I want one
pointed to the table and one pointed to the whiteboard.

~~~
ben1040
My company has a system from Vidyo (who appears to have collaborated with
Google on this, and whose technology apparently powers part of the Hangouts
product in general).

We've got a Mac Mini in every conference room, and every conference room
represents a "room" in Vidyo. The whole thing is really frictionless. You open
the app on your desktop, say you want to join the meeting in Room XYZ, and
next thing you know you appear on the TV in there. Everyone also gets a
personal "room" so if you're a remote worker and want to call a meeting with
people in an office, you can just tell people in a physical conference room to
join you by name.

The desktop client is implemented in Flex so it's a little ugly, but still
works pretty well. I've been doing several meetings a week over Vidyo for the
last six months and it's been pretty seamless.

It sounds like this is the same sort idea, except with Google Apps
integration.

------
rayshan
This is really cool, unlike other enterprise teleconference vendors, this is
single fee up-front and free ongoing.

Can you chromecast to a chromebox? If so this can replace the crap load of
Apple TVs we have at work, great for the 1/2 of folks that're on Thinkpads.

edit: missed "includes first year's $250 management & support fee"

~~~
spankalee
You can do better than Chromecast with the Chromebox setup, you can share your
screen, window, or document, into the hangout so that all participants can see
it. You can do this now with Hangouts, you don't need the Chromebox.

We use this at Google for all of our video conferencing, and have for years.
It's very well battle tested.

Edit: It looks like there's a $250/year fee per Chromebox. I'm not sure if
that's good or bad compared to other vendors. You can connect from your
computer or phone for free though.

------
russell_h
This looks awesome, we use Google+ Hangouts a lot around our office because
the "real" VC solution we have barely works.

Anyone know if this thing has to be logged into a Google account, or does it
get its own address of some sort? Also, is it possible to have a call between
two of these devices?

------
moskie
Hopefully this price point and target audience is just the beginning (a la
Tesla?).

I'd love for it to be simpler for me to arrange Hangouts in my living room,
and for now I deal with doing it through an HTPC.... but I'm absolutely not
interested in paying what they're charging here. So I hope eventually they
introduce a cheaper consumer targeted device.

(edit: here's hoping the next Chromecast has a way to hook up a webcam...)

~~~
aiiane
Regarding your desire for the Chromecast to have a webcam hookup - one factor
that might play into why it doesn't is that in general encoding video is
somewhat more computationally expensive than decoding it.

~~~
colechristensen
Just have an ASIC do it. No need for a general purpose processor.

~~~
Groxx
Especially since they probably already have a hardware h264 decoder, which is
part of the reason decoding is so much faster.

------
erva
> Need to meet with a customer who doesn’t use Chromebox for meetings? That’s
> easy too—all they need is a Gmail account.

This would be amazing, except no partner or customer our company works with
has a gmail account. I have used quite a few different solutions, and while
none of them wow me, the one thing all of them did was work for everyone.

For this to become a viable solution for this market it will need to include
non-gmail users.

~~~
smm2000
I have gmail personal gmail account but I will absolutely not use it for
business purposes. It's just unprofessional to ask everyone to log in into
gmail.

~~~
wj
It is any different than asking everybody to log in to Skype?

It is definitely preferable to asking somebody to drop tens or hundreds of
thousands on other enterprise virtual conferencing solutions.

------
rch
I like that it comes with an integrated camera, but I would like to be able to
use an existing A/V systems as well. I've been in meeting rooms that already
have a camera in every corner, plus one in front on an actuated gimbal.
Leveraging that existing hardware would make a lot of sense.

------
ebcase
We've cobbled together a rough equivalent of this at work, using a Mac Mini +
Hangouts, a Logitech video camera, a wall-mounted flatscreen, and a USB
speakerphone. The pieces all work as expected, but it's clunky and needs to be
better integrated.

For example, someone will change the Mac's sound IO for whatever reason, then
the Hangout audio IO will change and someone else won't realize this (e.g.
sound comes out of the Mini speaker in the closet, instead of the
speakerphone). So a few mins at the start of every few meetings is spent
debugging these things.

The holy grail everyone wants is, "walk into the room, and it just does the
right thing." This looks like a step in that direction from our current setup.

~~~
jdonagher
This device addresses a lot of those issues. Walk into the room; joining the
hangout booked for this meeting just requires a single button press.

The Chromebox is bound to a room (GApps resource) so it is aware of which
meetings start when, and shows this to you on the screen.

Also, the Mac Mini solution involves creating named GApps accounts, and
inevitably those sessions time out or people log them out. These devices also
solve that problem (they are 'bound' to your GApps domain), which for a
company with more than a few conference rooms can get really old.

------
bluedino
I wonder how well this works over T1's. We have 5 offices that this would work
great for, and would be far, far less than the $10k/site we paid for LifeSize
video conference systems (excellent, by the way) at the last place I worked.

~~~
wmf
I'm surprised anyone is still using (only) T1s; business cable is a much
better deal.

~~~
bluedino
Can't get cable in many locations, and cable often isn't as reliable.

~~~
fpgeek
I remember trying to replace a T1 with Comcast Business Cable. It was faster
in the office, but variable latency, dropped packets, less usable remote
access (just ssh and scp) and more frequent maintenance outages killed it.

IIRC, SDSL turned out to be the better answer (and we really, really wanted to
try FiOS, but they didn't support our building).

~~~
wmf
Has anyone tried some kind of bonding between the T1 and cable? A reliable but
slow connection and a fast but variable connection seem like they could be
much cheaper than a fast and reliable connection.

------
AjithAntony
FWIW, The target audience may already be the types who pay for "Chromebooks
for Business":

    
    
      Management console & support: $150

------
Touche
Really wish Hangouts would switch to WebRTC.

~~~
troymc
Maybe it will once enough people have web browsers that support WebRTC.

~~~
aroch
Both Firefox and Chrome supports webRTC. Chrome however has an implementation
that isn't fully RFC compliant making FF and Chrome cross-talk more difficult

------
skywhopper
While this sounds interesting, it seems like a major branding error. Why mix
"Chrome" with a meeting-room appliance? Extending the Chrome brand to a
browser-UI-based OS makes sense, since your interaction with the OS is
basically using the browser. But this...

~~~
bergie
It runs on a Chromebox

------
skyjedi
Just the next step. First Google offers a cheaper Office solution. Schools,
Government, and Businesses fall over themselves to switch. A cheaper, more
feature filled, Video Conference solution is just the natural progression.

------
m0dest
The remote looks an awful lot like the Boxee remote (RF).

Chromebox for meetings: [http://blog.cdw.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3940_copy-
markup-...](http://blog.cdw.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3940_copy-
markup-1024x596.jpg)

Boxee remote:
[http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/dlink_boxee_dsm_22_...](http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/dlink_boxee_dsm_22_remote_news.jpg)

------
rubiquity
So regular computers just can't cut the mustard at streaming video? I don't
see the value in a custom hardware product for this and I can't quite justify
the price tag. It's not often that Google creates a product where you say to
yourself "Oh, I guess this just wasn't created for me" but I think this is one
of those rare occasions.

Disclaimer: I'm not a megacorp with millions to spend.

~~~
VikingCoder
Every company I've ever worked at (save one) had projectors in conference
rooms, but no permanent computer hooked up to it. The meeting organizer would
have to set up a web conference in something, and then people would share
their Desktop, and whoever the presenter at the moment was would plug in their
laptop.

And then the guy forgot his power cord, and can't project for the whole
meeting.

And then the other guy forgot his Mac's VGA converter.

And then some other guy has a Mac VGA converter, but it's the old one, not the
new one.

And then the guy's Windows box for some reason will not show video on the
second monitor.

And the file he needed was on his desktop, not his laptop, and does anyone
have a USB key?

And now Windows is rebooting and you can't turn off the power, because it's
installing updates.

I think a permanent ChromeOS-based computer plugged in to the projector makes
a TON of sense. I've also drunk the Google Docs kool-aid, so YMMV.

EDIT: Oh, and then because the projector was sharing his desktop, we get to
see a ton of instant messages. Some of them from his wife. If instead you were
doing a Hangout on a collaborative Google Doc, you wouldn't see that.

~~~
scott_s
Every once in a while, I delete one of my own comments because someone else
said the same thing, but better. This is one of those times.

------
moca
For those people who complain about $250 annual fee, just think about how much
a plain old phone line would cost.

Regarding the $750 hardware cost, if you build 15-way video conference system
and sell it with $200 operating margin and one year hardware warranty, good
luck if you can hit $750 price point. The price will surely go down over time,
but it is way cheaper than anything else on the market.

------
eitally
For a lot of companies, the biggest benefit here will be having a cheap
computer _already in_ the meeting rooms that facilitates wireless screen
sharing for any users with any kind of device that can use Hangouts. Compare
that to traditional hardware-based VC and the amount of friction this
eliminates, especially for non-technical users, is enormous.

------
wil421
What would convince an organization to switch for something like Cisco's
webex?

$999 seems like a lot when I can just use my current laptop with a VGA/HDMI
cable plugged into the TV and then share over webex. And I am not really sure
about using hangouts.

For video conferencing the price is probably a steal over what the cisco
telepresence costs.

~~~
locustreign
Depending on your flavor of WebEx, the cost is roughly $100/mo.

After one year you are a bit ahead with the Chromebox (~$1200/WebEx vs
$1000/Chromebox) but I totally agree with your questioning of hangouts as a
proven tool in an enterprise environment. Dedicated Cisco telepresence is in
the magnitude of $15k to $150k depending on the feature set.

~~~
jdonagher
Webex is more suitable for outside sales calls or running through decks.

We've found this unit excellent for team meetings or coworking with remote
team members (we were part of the pilot). The audio and video quality is very
good, and unlike with Skype, the meeting is just a simple URL you follow to
join; distributed in the Calendar event.

You can also bookmark named hangouts; for example if you have a 1:1 with a
remote coworker every day. Or, I dunno, if you wanted to hold regular office
hours - you could have essentially a static hangout that you use for an hour
or two every day. Google is really trying to make Hangouts a solid
videoconferencing tool, and for companies already using Google Apps, this is
an incredibly valuable addition.

------
pinaceae
haha.

[http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/HP-
Chromebo...](http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/HP-Chromebox-
Chrome-simplicity-tiny-desktop/ba-p/87295#.UvQs2V4d3Jg)

HP just released a Chrome OS device, the HP Chromebox.

I wonder who will now change the naming...

~~~
McGlockenshire
All of the Chromeboxes - the Samsung first, then the Asus now - have been
called "Chromebox" in the same way that all of the Chromebooks have been
called "Chromebook."

------
higherpurpose
Does that thing really need a Core i7 processor? (which probably represents
half of the component costs)

~~~
zhengyi13
Up to 15 simultaneous HD streams? Yes.

------
blcArmadillo
Anyone else notice that the remote for this thing is almost identical to the
boxee box remote?

~~~
mlni
Also, the speaker looks pretty much like Jabra Speak 410. And the camera looks
like a Logitech fullhd webcam without Logitech logos. Which are all admittedly
excellent products for doing video meetings.

------
kasperset
How does it compare to Blue Jeans?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jeans_Network](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jeans_Network)

------
fizzbar
Huh. Can anyone think of why this _isn 't_ going to totally dominate the
videoconference space in a few years? Cheaper + works better == huge win, no?

------
hrjet
If something is very cheap and provided by a company focused on advertisements
based on user data, I am going to be skeptical. What's in it for Google?

------
dangerboysteve
Tell you what google, why don't you the service for few years before I sign up
to make sure you want to keep the offering.

~~~
thrownaway2424
You're an idiot, but Google switched to this years ago. There must be 10,000
of these things in total at Google offices.

------
cnaut
Google is eating Microsoft's lunch

------
fidotron
Great, but any company big enough to be in the market for this should probably
not be using Hangouts to hold meetings in.

~~~
nkozyra
because ... ?

~~~
fidotron
The contents of the hangout exist unencrypted in Google's data centres, which
are of unclear jurisdiction, so the meetings are not suitable for any sort of
confidential information.

~~~
tantalor
"Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying"
[http://wapo.st/1adFyAe](http://wapo.st/1adFyAe)

~~~
fidotron
Nope - to reformat the video for different devices Hangouts have to be
decrypted on the intermediary servers.

------
rocky5
Is it available only in U.S ?

------
perlpimp
if this is google hangouts implementation, I sure hope they have fixed the
problem with autogain.when we used hangouts volume always crept up until
feedback loop appeared, there is no way to turn it off in the settings. we
switched to skype that handles this sort of thing well.

~~~
aiiane
As someone who uses GVC (Google's internal version of this system), it's not
an issue.

------
Zenst
I read this and remember back in the late 90's when Videoconferenceing was
moving away from expensive ISDN lines into the internet and thoughts of H.320
and respective document sharing (slides as this does) add-ons and extensions
gave a usable platform albeit not cheap. That changes, video compression and
codec onto chips came to market and got cheaper and cheaper.

Now some 15 years later after many flavours, Google now offer the option but
not just a feature push, but on a slow, methodical gradual feature addition
which has seen the progress from VOIP/IM chat into video, into group video
into a public contact phone book (aka Google+) of today. Then into a rebrand
and now just polishing to the lowest common denominator of user in userbility
(I personaly prefered ealier Gmail and chat clients, but that's me and other
quirky geeks I suspect).

So why is this big or important more too the point. Well If you view ChromeOS
and its features to a modern revamp of the `dumb` terminal (that were not that
dumb and could do Various terminal standards and on mainframes even form
validation for numeric and alpha feilds and size of input back in the 80's.

Now duringt he 80's a company called SInclair released there next ZX Spectrum
replacement which ICL modified and released the OPD (One Per Desk). This was
featurewise in mahy respects what a user today wants in a terminal, even had
phone built in, though no video back in the 300baud data days.

So too me I see ChromeOS and the slow but sure feature set grow, as the new
terminal for the cloud - aka cluster/distributed mainframes we use thesedays.
After all everything goes in circles, even technology approach. I know people
can and do view webbrowsers as the terminal of our times and yes, many would
be right, but if you step back a level you would want something with a little
more, though not much more and a good interface and mobiles have opened up the
whole touch-screen interfacing (was around in the 80's, just not as cheap and
usable) and for many tasks, work very well. But bigger screens always will
help upto a point and a real keyboard (although still stuck in a layout that
seems like forcing some backwards outdated layout onto new people and children
even today, think keyboard-religion). It is with that all in mind for me that
make ChromeOS seems like the `dumb` terminal of our times and remember `dumb`
terminals are never dumb.

Now when you can add via a MCU/bridge external VC setups and studios into a
hangout is when Google will be truely and finaly solidifying a technology that
serves our times and needs and if anything else. Least help stop the UN and
other World leaders flying around the World to lecture us mear peons why the
climate is in a mess and how we should do our part about carbon emisions,
whilst they then fly to the poles for photo shoots to add onto there stories
of why climate change is happening.

That is what Videoconferencing can truely offer and can, but its main issue
has always been taking it serious compared to a jolly/plane flight/travel for
so many mentality wise, again think the same mentalities that give us QWERTY
keyboard-religions.

One day, but after over 15 years I hope this keeps the momentum and slow but
sure approach google has taken so far into Videoconferencing/VOIP. Until then
we will always have `dumb` terminals and mainframes be they touchscreen
clients or clustered machines called a cloud.

------
pearjuice
Got to love the ash tray on the table in that picture. Ironic, isn't it?

[https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uD5BuNqI4DA/UvOpyapQheI/AAAAAAAAAOs/N...](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-uD5BuNqI4DA/UvOpyapQheI/AAAAAAAAAOs/NZmVWWW-
HDM/s1600/lifestyle_chromemeeting_wireless_CBadd.png)

~~~
jccalhoun
[http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_SPEAK__410_S...](http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_SPEAK__410_Series/Jabra_SPEAK_410)

