I am involved in an interesting dialog with David Daniels at Always-On., based on this posting:

"I've recently taken interest in the vast array of products in the "online, real-time collaboration" space. Video over IP, VoIP, joint document editing, etc. Throw a rock and you'll hit at least a half-dozen of the vendors who play in this space. I gotta ask: Does the market really care about these products? Beyond the coolness of seeing your colleague in a little window on your PC does anyone get any real business value out of these products? Is the immediacy of seeing a grainy image - kinda like watching astronauts in the Space Station on the news - that compelling? In what businesses is this capability a "must have" rather than a "nice to have".

My belief is that the problems with these products are:

1) There's no compelling business problem to be solved
2) The cost of entry is low causing a flood of "me too" competitors
3) A lack of interoperability among products inhibits the network effect
4) It requires a behavioral change that users aren't willing to adopt
5) There are reasonable alternatives we use everyday

These problems aren't going to be solved anytime soon yet there continue to be new players in this space. Investors, why would you put money into a clearly losing proposition?

Food for thought."

Reminds me of the flapdoodle with Dvorak regarding his comments about IM, minus the invective and snotty tone.