[skywhopper]

Latency is the killer for me. Both with video calls and even just with cell phone calls. Old school phone calls could be spontaneous and collaborative almost as good as meeting in person, because latency was as close to zero as possible and you could properly hear both people talking at the same time. But the delays and lack of good audio mixing in cell and video-call tech mean it’s impossible to use in the same way. Given the fundamental differences, then, the better solution is to use video calls only for highly structured meetings and to use other tools like chat and email (gasp) for remote collaboration.

[stavros]

VoIP phones have excellent latency nowadays, much better than a call. It's possible to have a normal conversation on them.

[kkfx]

It's not much the phone but the network. How many insist using craptops with crappy softphone webapps connected via crappy wifi because they think a damn desktop with a normal cat6 to the router is "an old thing"? How many even try to attend certain meetings on the go on crappy mobile macrobugs AKA smartphones on mobile networks?

[dbalatero]

I think a laptop with cat6 would be sufficient.

[kkfx]

Technically yes, but a laptop as a desktop replacer is sound only if you need to use it also on the go and most of the time you are on the go. Otherwise a desktop is much more sound: while some laptop can be docked (any most can be used as docked even without a proper station) it's a nonsense setup if you aren't really "on the go". A desktop is cheaper, easier to maintain.

My main point is simple: hybrid work is dumb: you still need to be near the office, witch typically is in a dense city, where accommodations tend to be tight, so WFH there is not cheaper than the office nor much comfy, you reduce commuting but still need to commute in a dense so unpleasant environment, and you do not have the advantage of single family homes in most cases where you have room for many things at home, from freezers to p.v. and so on. Also offices are even LESS utilized, we already have in cities big buildings used for less than 12h/day with hybrid "home" usage climb but still less than full remote and office usage plunge even more. You need laptops or double desk setup, again wasted resources and/or reduced comfort for what? Just to get physical ads (shops windows) while commuting, the need to commute more simply because being in tighter places you can't stock much at home, all just to make the finance capitalism, the surveillance capitalism to survive a bit more? NO THANKS.

There are some jobs who need desktops and can't be from home, so laptops do have a reason to exists, but they should be niche products not mainstream desktop. So far the idea "a real desktop for anyone is too much resources, while mobile devices, subnotebooks can be given to anyone" prove to be PR bullshit because it sound logic, but given the little useful life of such devices compared to desktop (few years against 8-10-12 years for a personal generic desktop that can still be upgraded partially) and the nearly no recycling prove we waste MUCH MORE resources in building crap: smartphones, tablet, smart watches, TV, ... instead of a single desktop per human. So if we can give a mobile device to any humans we can give a desktop to anyone, if we can't we MIGHT still be able to gives desktop.

Mobile is needed in most cases for slavery, the rest is just a niche. It's about time to understand that, stop the utter style of a desk with a small laptop and a smartphone and a smartwatch and some all-in-ears battery powered crap to have a simple desktop, with a good monitor, a good "conference style" combined device (mic+speaker+cam), a damn trackball and mechanical keyboard. Things built to last at least 8 years for 99% of the people. Less integrated as possible to be less hard to recycle and easier to partially upgrade.