Cisco Meeting Server vs. FoxDen (Discontinued)

Cisco meeting Server can be used to host meeting for a small group 2 people and also can host meeting for hundreds of people. Even if the scalability increases no compromise in the call and consistent performance can be observed. The video quality is clear and there is no noticeable latency between audio and video. The recording feature is well placed and it helps a lot in rectifying and processing the important points that might have been left out during the meeting.

Incentivized

FoxDen tended to work slightly better for very small video conferences. The audio was typically reliable, so it would be ok to use for audio conferencing. It is definitely not ready for prime time: it cannot handle very large conferences. It didn't seem ready to be used on mobile either. I also think it's better suited for a smaller company.

Incentivized

• Integrates well with other devices
• More than 1 person can be on video call with minimal lag
• Quiet cost effective for a company with many employees

Incentivized

• Easy to join meetings
• Audio is fairly reliable
• Moderately easy to host meetings

Incentivized

• Allowing more user interaction rather than just video and audio.
• Split screen option to share content and view faces from those on the meeting.

Incentivized

• Horrible video quality. It basically never worked, and we stopped using the video feature.
• Buggy behavior all the time. Dropped calls, loss of screen sharing, rendered unusable most of the time.
• Poor response by the vendor to issues. The answer was basically "we know it's unusable, and we're trying to figure that out. There's nothing we can do right now."

Incentivized

because we're satisfied of the product

Incentivized

very easy to use and quick to learn

Incentivized

I never used Support

Incentivized

Apart from Cisco Meeting Server, only Poly offers full fledged on-premise meeting server. Their solution is called Polycom RealPresence
Collaboration Server. But there solutions are mostly outdated. Even though they have recently changes to subscription via Poly Clarity but servers are still very old. Whereas Cisco Meeting Server was recently updated and integrates well with WebEx and Cisco's other products.

Incentivized

I believe they selected FoxDen because we use ReadyTalk for voice conferencing and FoxDen represented a cost savings compared to our previous Skype for Business investment. However, in the end, most of our company has abandoned ever using FoxDen and, instead, still uses all of the products listed above (Skype for Business, Google Hangouts, Slack) or just plain ReadyTalk voice conferencing.

Incentivized

• More meetings came in, but in more efficient way
• More features are available in our meetings
• More connections to the colleagues through Cisco Meeting Server

Incentivized

• Increased the length of our meetings due to copious amounts of time spent trying to fix the video and screen sharing.
• Added frustration for everyone who attempted to use it.
• Ultimately resulted in a lot of money lost on video equipment that everyone stopped using in favor of voice-only conferencing due to the faulty video.

Incentivized