Working From Home

Throughout my career, I have worked from home for months at a time.  I find it very convenient for the most part- no morning dash to the shower, no morning commute, just a quick bite to eat and I’m at work with my coffee still warm from the kitchen.  I can get four hours of work done before lunch.

I’ve often wondered why video telecommuting doesn’t happen more often.  We have the technology (and we can rebuild him!) to get full video and voice going between multiple locations.  Skype, MSN Messenger, AIM and a host of other free software is easy to set up.  Webcams are cheap.  What gives?

I think Scott Hanselman has figured it out.  Turns out, it’s not the technology, it’s the way you set it up.  The “creep factor” of videoconferencing is a reality that has to be addressed.  There’s just something weird about realtime video conversation.  I’m sure my kids will think it’s no big deal, but it’s new enough that most people feel like they’re actually on TV.

So, as the good Mr. Hanselman explains, your primary machine must not be the one you use for videoconferencing.  You don’t have your coworkers staring you in the face while you work.  If you want to talk to a neighbor, you back off your computer and turn around.  He and Phil Haack have each dedicated a PC in their home offices to the purpose of full-screen, high resolution video.

I’m intrigued by this setup, and I think it holds promise for broader adoption of telecommuting.  In fact, I think it could breathe life into a niche product: the PC-in-a-flatscreen.  The idea of a completely un-extendable, non-upgradable PC had always baffled me: who would want such a thing?  As a dedicated communication device for the home office, it makes sense.  I think it could be made very cheaply, given that all you need is enough horsepower to run a webcam stream.  A decent processor, network interface, and video card could be bundled into a slightly thicker-than-usual VGA flat panel with a VESA mount on the back.  Done deal!