So Microsoft duly launched its unified communications onslaught Tuesday and the blogosphere is all abuzz now that Microsoft is butting heads with Cisco (and a host of PBX and other UC vendors).
The blogosphere is interested in the Cisco vs. Microsoft angle because Cisco is spending a lot of energy (and cash for acquisitions) beefing up its unified communications story. A peek behind all the stories (e.g., here and here) reveals the strengths and weaknesses of Microsoft and Cisco's unified communications strategies, as one emerges from the software side, while the other from the networking side. Which vendor is the right one for organizations looking to implement unified communications - only you, dear reader, can tell us.
Here are the strengths and weaknesses of Microsoft and Cisco:
|
CISCO |
MICROSOFT |
| Cisco has years of experience with IP and networking and sees unified communications as an extension of that. | Microsoft says communications is now based on software – its expertise – not hardware. |
| Cisco lacks the 20-plus years of software development experience that Microsoft boasts. | Microsoft faces the challenge of providing voice communications, something with which it is unfamiliar. |
| Cisco has expanded into software, with purchases of collaborative software vendors, including WebEx. | Microsoft’s unified communications keyword is partnership, partnering with business communications experts – including Cisco. |
| Cisco works with partners in unified communications for services such as e-mail, but some analysts reckon could eventually offer its own such software. | Customers won’t trust Microsoft with their voice needs and will take Microsoft two to three years to prove its mettle here. |
Did we miss something?
Go to Cisco Subnet for more Cisco news, blogs, discussion forums, security alerts, book giveaways, and more.
The Cisco Subnet blog is the official blog of the Network World Cisco Subnet community, managed by Editor Linda Leung. Cisco Subnet is the independent voice of Cisco customers and is your gateway to daily Cisco news, blogs, opinion, books, prize giveaways and more. Visit the Cisco Subnet home page daily and while you are there, subscribe to the Cisco Alert e-mail newsletter, which includes news and views generated by the Cisco Subnet community as well as Cisco-related stories on Network World and elsewhere on the Web.
(WAN community)The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
Does this really signal a new era of communications?
See Microsoft Subnet for more Microsoft-related news, blogs, security alerts, technical group.
The story says: "At Tuesday’s event in San Francisco, Microsoft not only formally launched its unified communications (UC) platform anchored by Office Communications Server (OCS) 2007 and Office Communicator 2007 client, it also introduced the centerpieces of its unified communications strategy to bring together e-mail, instant messaging, presence, voice and video."
The holy grail of the unified inbox has been around for a good 20 years. Is the time right for the average end user to give up the hardware and communicate through the computer? And is the desktop sturdy enough to do it? Given how much communication is done via e-mail and IM instead of the phone, the answer could be yes. Next question, of course, is Microsoft the company to take the typical end user to land of telephony?
Reply to Micronet
I would take issue with several statements you have represented as facts. The comment on how much is done via IM and email vs voice communications. Lets be honest and state that email is a nightmare to manage for most corporate users and IM is great but you cant state that any serious business is conducted via IM. Today and for the near future it will continue to be done via voice communications. Second it should be stated the Microsoft is not introducing anything new or differentiated with OCS. Much of what OCS is providing can be provided by most if not all Tier 1 vendors today with the exception of email. A number of Tier 1 vendors offer a software based solution today with a very robust SDK for Business Process Integration. In fact Microsoft relied on these vendors in the past to do this work. Micrsoft will likely be successful in this space but not because they have a superior product. They have a brand recongnition and will offer it at a perceived lower cost.
Federation back into Microsoft
What's missed in part of the ecosystem discussion is getting the federation into Microsoft from the outside. They federate going out to MSN, AIM and Yahoo but what's needed is opening it up so that communication partners can enable attendant consoles, ACD, contact center and other vertical market applications by federating with flexibility in who manages presence.
Paul Lopez
Federating is possible
Paul, not sure what you mean by opening it up. But the Microsoft platform is open for federating. Today there is integration between telco vendors like Nortel, Mitel, RIM, etc. You can see presence (coming from LCS) on a Mitel phone and Mitel can forward calls on behaviour of the presence status.
There is a UC Managed Application SDK available for OCS which also realizes this.
SAP, Siebel and BEA use the LCS presence in their apllications as well.
Microsoft
I noticed in the in post above that you switch between OCS and LCS. LCS is a different animal than OCS. With LCS just about every communications vendor had done a thorough integration and the services provided by LCS and any given vendor were complimentary in nature. With OCS this is simply not the case. OCS creates a walled garden where standards based SIP must traverse a mediation server to interwork. Mediation server separate the microsoft domain from the SIP domain. It offers no security and basic call functions. Microsofts claim to the enterprise is that they offer an Open software based solution. In truth Microsoft has specified their own software and OS for phone and gateway vendors to build if they want to work with OCS. Of the phones available for OCS only 2 are currently real IP Phones as the rest are USB phones that connect to OCS through the desktop integration. The 2 IP phones are essentially clones of each other (Polycom and LG). They are identical hardware platforms running microsoft OS. A similar story is taking place with gateways as well. Microsoft has even specified their own proprietary CODEC for use with OCS. The reason Microsoft is doing this is quite obvious and the purpose of this post is not pass judgement but to call it as it is. OCS is in many respects more proprietary than what is available from the top vendors. They are using the same message that cisco used 8 plus years ago stating that the industry is closed and they are open. It only took cisco 7 years to provide a linux OS with SIP capabilities althought they still offer and push their proprietary technology based on SCCP.