How does a hologram compare to Zoom or video calls?

Zoom on a screen reads as a call. A hologram reads as a presence. Same underlying content, a remote person appearing at a destination, but a completely different perceptual outcome. Zoom wins on ubiquity and low per-call cost. Holograms win on interactions where perceived presence changes the outcome.

The perceptual difference

A video call on a flat screen delivers a 2D image at whatever size the screen is. The viewer’s brain reads this correctly: “I’m watching a video of someone.” That’s the right interpretation for a meeting.

A hologram of the same person on a Holobox delivers a life size projection with perceived depth. The viewer’s brain reads this differently: “There’s a person here.” That matters when the interaction stakes ride on how the counterpart is perceived, a hotel host greeting a guest, a doctor consulting a patient, a keynote speaker addressing an audience.

Where Zoom is the right tool

Where a hologram changes the outcome

The economic distinction

Zoom’s per-call cost is effectively zero. A Holobox deployment has a fixed hardware cost (from EUR 4,500 for the Mini, EUR 25,000 for the flagship) plus content production and installation. This is a large fixed cost that only makes sense when the deployment runs many times or the per-interaction stakes are high enough to justify it.

For a single location one-off, compare rental terms via hologram hire, per-event rental is a fraction of purchase cost and turns the ROI question into a per-event ROI question.

Related reading

The perceptual difference is only visible in person.

Book a remote demo, you’ll join a live Holobox session with our team from your desk, exactly the way a specialist joins a patient consult. You’ll feel the difference between a video call and a hologram in the first minute.

346 customers rate us 9.5/10. From the first US hologram hospital to hotels across Europe.

346 customers rate us with a 9.5/10

Is a hologram better than Zoom for meetings?

For everyday meetings, Zoom is the right tool, cheaper, ubiquitous, calendar-integrated. For interactions where perceived presence matters (a hotel guest checking in, a patient consulting a specialist, a keynote audience meeting a speaker), a hologram delivers a perceptually different outcome. Not "better than Zoom", different medium, different use case.

Why doesn't Zoom on a big screen produce the same effect?

A Zoom call on a flat screen is still a 2D image. The viewer's brain reads it as a video call because that's what the visual signals encode. A hologram's transparent LCD + light box produces perceived depth that reads as a person in the room. Different signal, different perceived-presence outcome.

Where does the hologram approach change the outcome?

Hotel concierge (guest reads as being greeted by a person, not directed to a kiosk), telehealth consult (patient responds to the specialist as if in the room), keynote presentation (300-person audience reacts to a speaker rather than watches a video), and guest lecture (students engage as if with a physical lecturer).

Is there any use case where hologram > Zoom for internal meetings?

Rarely. Internal meetings are usually low stakes-per-interaction and high frequency, Zoom's economics dominate. Hologram makes sense for external-facing moments where the perceptual outcome is worth the deployment cost: customer-facing, audience-facing, or clinical patient-facing.