<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sightspeed 4.5</title>
	<atom:link href="http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/</link>
	<description>A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/#comment-3403</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 06:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/#comment-3403</guid>
		<description>Today, I signed up for http://www.stickam.com , it integrated very easily into my blogger blog.  It provides realtime video AND a clientless flash VoIP service, chat, other videos, pictures etc.,  essentially this is video, but the packaging is very compelling,  and I was quick to see potential business opportunities for it.  

Maybe video is compelling, as long as it is packaged and presented the right way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today, I signed up for <a href="http://www.stickam.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stickam.com</a> , it integrated very easily into my blogger blog.  It provides realtime video AND a clientless flash VoIP service, chat, other videos, pictures etc.,  essentially this is video, but the packaging is very compelling,  and I was quick to see potential business opportunities for it.  </p>
<p>Maybe video is compelling, as long as it is packaged and presented the right way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alec</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/#comment-3366</link>
		<dc:creator>Alec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/#comment-3366</guid>
		<description>I think these are all valid questions Andrew. Me personally, I am in your camp. Folks like Erik Lagerway, however, have this strong conviction that citizen journalism, for instance, is an untapped market.  I think the jury's still out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think these are all valid questions Andrew. Me personally, I am in your camp. Folks like Erik Lagerway, however, have this strong conviction that citizen journalism, for instance, is an untapped market.  I think the jury&#8217;s still out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/#comment-3332</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2006/02/13/sightspeed-45/#comment-3332</guid>
		<description>I like Sightspeed, it works great.   But someone has to ask the question though~ Does anyone really want video?

Skype's video is cool, as is MSN, Yahoo's etc., what are the business reasons for Video, (get your mind out of the gutter Alec :) )  

Maybe it is just me, but I don't particularily like it, voice is quicker - I can multitask without appearing rude on camera, and I don't have to be stationary.

Do IMlike providers add it just because it is as relatively easy as voice?  and younger users constantly ask for it?  Personally, I think stereo conferencing is more compelling, but no one seems to be working on integrating that technology...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like Sightspeed, it works great.   But someone has to ask the question though~ Does anyone really want video?</p>
<p>Skype&#8217;s video is cool, as is MSN, Yahoo&#8217;s etc., what are the business reasons for Video, (get your mind out of the gutter Alec :) )  </p>
<p>Maybe it is just me, but I don&#8217;t particularily like it, voice is quicker - I can multitask without appearing rude on camera, and I don&#8217;t have to be stationary.</p>
<p>Do IMlike providers add it just because it is as relatively easy as voice?  and younger users constantly ask for it?  Personally, I think stereo conferencing is more compelling, but no one seems to be working on integrating that technology&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
