The premise of the piece is that video conference platforms such as Cisco's Telepresence (shown at top of this post) H-P's Halo, and others tend to concentrate on the enablement of "premise-based" solutions rather than be centered on the mobile component of videoconferencing.
Here's the gist of Andy's arguments:
As a road warrior, running a growing virtual agency, with a client base spanning the Middle East to the South Pacific and everything in between, it is easy to relate to Adubato's remarks.
The only people who would want to invest in a system that is "based" in a "fixed" location would be the status seeking, sedentary executive who wants to "show off" what they have. But for the members of the team that needs it most, the sales force in the field, who are always either the first to adopt-can you spell pagers and RIM Messengers--or the most resistive to change because anything that takes them away from selling is something to get around to later--no one is thinking of them.
What good does it do to invest the kind of money these "business communications solutions" offer, when only those who are in a "studio" can use it.
While these grand business communications solutions sometimes have a mobile component, they do appear to be aftertoughts- or at best a limb on a tree. Perhaps closer to the nucleus or hub would be a more appropriate nexus?