June 5, 2009 4:52 PM
Posted by: WPeterson
, Google Wave
, hosted UC
Just got off the phone with Vanessa Alvarez, an analyst with Frost & Sullivan, who suggested that rather than Google Wave threatening Cisco WebEx and other collaboration vendors, this could be a perfect opportunity for unlikely partnerships.
“The Ciscos and Siemens and other UC vendors should be looking at this concept to see what they can do to [learn from] or even to interoperate with this platform,” she said. “There’s been talk about Cisco WebEx, and it’s really prime to interconnect with Google Wave.”
But wait, isn’t Google Wave infringing on Cisco and Siemens hard fought turf?
Alvarez said it can be a win-win, because Google’s had trouble penetrating the enterprise market while the UC traditional vendors have stumbled drumming up developer support.
“We’ve told the UC community to start nurturing their own developers, and Avaya has DevConnect, but Cisco has had trouble with that,” she said.
Whatever partnerships follow from the Wave announcement, Alvarez said she’s excited about its potential.
“It’s definitely ground breaking in the sense of what it does, it definitely revolutionizes the current state of the market today,” she said. “But it has a long way to go. It still is in a very infant state.”
There’s even Google Wave discussion on Cisco‘s own forums, where Dan Miller, founder and analyst with Opus Research, writes in a posting:
In the near term a feature called “playback” is destined to be the difference maker. It is a feature that enables Wave users to tap into conversations at any point in time – past or present. While it is tempting to think of such a conversation as a “thread” in a email trail or discussion group, tapping into (and reviewing the entries to) a Wave is tangibly different. Most dramatically, entries are displayed on the screens of all participants in real time (or close to it). So there are times when participants, literally, work on the same documents at the same time. To paraphrase Gene Kelly: “That’s Collaboration.”
Playback is also the doctor’s prescription for social media-driven attention deficit disorder. It is the mechanism that enables people to search and tap into an ongoing “thread”, review it from the beginning and work up to real time. But, as the infomercial goes “that’s not all”. Wave enables picture sharing and the addition of any media feed for that matter.
Read more at SearchUnifiedCommunications about Google Wave’s UC potential.
June 1, 2009 8:48 PM
Posted by: Shamus McGillicuddy
Reports out of Canada say that a team of former Nortel executives hope to raise money in order to buy the company out of bankruptcy and keep it more or less intact and under Canadian ownership. Former Nortel president Robert Ferchat, 74, leads a group that also includes former chief marketing officer Ian Craig and retired Nortel vice-president David Mann. It might be more accurate to call Ferchat the former president of Northern Telephone, since that was what Nortel was called back in 1991 when Ferchat last worked there.
Ferchat told the Ottawa Citizen that his group hopes to raise at least $1 billion US from investment banks in order to buy Nortel through the bankruptcy courts.
Meanwhile, Nortel’s current executives are still trying to sell off the company’s top business units. But Nortel CEO Mike Zafirovski’s efforts have been undermined because no one is willing to pay very much for them. For instance, Nortel sold its application delivery buisness to Radware in February for just pennies on the dollar. Nortel originally acquired that business when it bought Alteon for about $6 billion in 2000. Radware paid just $17.5 million to take the Alteon business off Nortel’s hands.
I’ve heard rumors that Avaya and especially Enterasys-Siemens are interested in buying Nortel’s enterprise communications business, but they are more interested in gaining access to Nortel’s customers than actually owning Nortel’s technology. How much are they willing to pay when they can simply try poaching nervous customers (and partners)?
May 27, 2009 6:22 PM
Posted by: ElaineHom
For seven seasons, Jack Bauer has rid the world of hundreds of terrorists, multiple nuclear bombs, and biological threats on Fox’s hit show 24. He didn’t do it alone — he had a trusty team of support, including Chloe on tech support, and Tony and Bill on tactical support. However, there was another key element to Jack’s success — Cisco WebEx, Cisco TelePresence and Cisco Unified Communications, as well as other Cisco products. Cisco sponsored this season and the past few seasons, and you could even get glimpses of the technology as they played integral parts of the plot lines.
For example, when President Allison Taylor (yet another reason I love this show — seasons ago, they debuted David Palmer as the first black president, and now Allison Taylor as the first woman president, who far out-acts Geena Davis from Commander in Chief) signs an executive pardon for a seemingly trustworthy source, she uses Cisco WebEx to electronically transfer her signature. An impending attack was taking place in DC, and he was the only person near the missiles who could help them, but he had a small window of opportunity. Time was of the essence, and the electronic signature was the best way to save time. Thanks to the product placement from Cisco, and a ringing endorsement from the head FBI agent (“We’ve already…set it up via WebEx, it’ll be able to give us a secure digital signature,” Agent Moss says), she was able to get her signature on the pardon to the source immediately and allow for the mission to take place.
When the acting heads of the group responsible for the day’s terrorist attacks decide to “meet” and discuss the next course of action after their plans had been foiled, they use a fancy UC product to do so, which allowed for roundtable discussion with private messaging and a button that allowed them “raise their hands,” but it also allowed for their anonymity with voice disguisers and a blank avatar per user (A driving part of the plot was that the group responsible for the attacks was unaware of each others’ identities, knowing only that they had the same vested interest in attacking American targets.). The UC product also allowed for document transfer among the members of the call. While Cisco was heavily shown in other scenes, I could not find any trace of a Cisco trademark in this scene — perhaps they don’t want to be associated with terrorists.
Then, in the season finale, a three-screen Cisco TelePresence setup allowed the Attorney General to question the President’s daughter and acting chief-of-staff, Olivia Taylor, about her role in the death of Jonas Hodges, who was suspected of treason and killed while in FBI custody. TelePresence allowed the AG, along with two other Justice Department agents, to interview Olivia with each person on a separate screen, and a safe network to make sure no hackers would get any of Olivia’s testimony. With clear detail in each person’s face, it would be more difficult to lie about a question, as she had three people watching her body language. It also allowed the AG to upload phone records and documents to Olivia, who was stowed away at the White House after the day’s events (including a siege at the White House and a DC biological weapon bomb scare), so she could verify them remotely and securely during the call without leaving the White House or setting up a separate secure line. Of course, it was all for naught, as Olivia later crumbled and fessed up to hiring someone to kill Hodges.
You can see all of these clips and more from past seasons on the Cisco website. Who knows how Cisco TelePresence or Cisco WebEx will aid Jack Bauer during season eight of 24, as he takes on a whole new set of technologically savvy terrorists?
May 20, 2009 6:13 PM
Posted by: WPeterson
At Interop this morning, HP and Microsoft announced a $180 million expansion of their partnership to jointly develop services and products as well as sell and market those products.
“Together, we are offering the extensive breadth of capabilities of our respective technologies to deliver a truly unified communications and collaboration solution to help our customers improve business productivity,” stated Stephen Elop, president, Microsoft Business Division, Microsoft, in a release on the HP-Microsoft partnership. “This means one click to communicate, one click to conference, one click to collaborate.”
The announcement highlights steps towards closer integration of the two companies’ product lines, such Microsoft Unified Communications qualification for the HP dx9000 TouchSmart Business PC, select smartphones, and new IP deskphones. Possibly more exciting is the integration of HP Halo Telepresence Solutions with OCS, enabling any OCS-compatible PC to join in on a HP teleconference call.
More details on the partnership, from the official release, after the jump.
May 4, 2009 5:18 PM
Posted by: Shamus McGillicuddy
The executives of Nortel have been walkin’ the streets at night
Just trying to get this bankruptcy right.
It’s hard to see the future with Cisco and Avaya around
You know they don’t like being stuck in that crowd
Customers think this waiting is lame.
They just don’t have time for this game.
But Nortel needs another month or two
Just a little more tiiiiime. Yeah.
Indeed, Nortel is asking the courts – and its wary customers – for just a little more patience.
Last month at VoiceCon, dozens of Nortel customers gathered at a special session entitled “I’m a Nortel customers. What do I do now?” At the session, customers peppered Nortel Enterprise president Joel Hackney with pointed questions about the future of the company. Hackney was candid in many of his responses, but quite often he deferred his answers. He assured customers that in May customers would get more answers, for May was the month that Nortel would file its restructuring plans in Canadian and U.S. courts.
Now we learn that Nortel and its court-appointed bankruptcy monitor, Ernst & Young, are asking the courts for an extension to July 30. Nortel customers will just have to find a little more patience for the ailing vendor, or they may want to do what many Nortel customers did at VoiceCon this year: Get to know the other players on the market.
April 29, 2009 8:41 PM
Posted by: Shamus McGillicuddy
John E. Burke, principal analyst over at Nemertes Research has an interesting take on the swine flu hysteria. It’s just another reason why companies should invest in telepresence technologies from Cisco, Tandberg, Polycom, HP et al.
Burke noted in an email from Nemertes that the flu outbreak in Mexico has prompted executives from Japanese companies like Sony and Sharp to cancel trips to their Mexican production facilities. He said telepresence would be a viable way for these executives to keep their face-to-face meetings with Mexican staff.
Vendors have so far focused their business cases for telepresence on the reduction of travel expenses, green initiatives and increased productivity. But clearly telepresence can also factor into business continuity and disaster recovery planning.
Extending that a bit further, desktop video should also get some attention thanks to swine flu. If a pandemic does indeed strike, many people would appreciate the option of working from home while the virus runs its course over the course of weeks or months.
April 27, 2009 5:34 PM
Posted by: Leigha
We’ve all heard the terms “cloud computing” and “SaaS,” and not unlike the term “unified communications,” there is considerable disparity as to what the terms actually mean respectively – especially when paired side by side. The answer, it seems, depends on who you ask.
Don Van Doren in his blog The Definition Dance Moves from UC to Cloud Computing wrote about a session he attended at the recent VoiceCon show in Orlando that he was bemused in the “Summit on Cloud Computing” session when Eric Krapf asked the panel of network and CPE suppliers, “How does your organization define cloud computing?” AT&T, Avaya, IBM, Verizon and Cisco all had rather generic responses you can find in Don’s blog.
Jason Stamper says there’s really no difference at all between the two terms. He cites Gartner’s definition that defines cloud computing as a style of computing where massively scalable IT-related capabilities are provided “as a service” using Internet technologies to multiple external customers.
So, if we accept Gartner’s definition of cloud computing, where does that leave us with SaaS?
According to Praising Gaw, SaaS is software that’s owned, delivered, and managed remotely by one or more providers. It also allows a sharing of application processing and storage resources in a one-to-many environment…on a pay-for-use basis, or as a subscription.
So do the differences between SaaS and cloud computing boil down to size? Cloud computing being “massively scalable” and SaaS falling somewhere below the “massively scalable” benchmark? Or is there even a difference between the two?
What do you think? How do you make sense of the two terms? Do we need two terms or can we pick one and start to make straight the circuitous path of IT terms and acronyms?
April 27, 2009 3:11 PM
Posted by: Shamus McGillicuddy
Tandberg announced this morning that its telepresence technology is now interoperable with the telepresence technology of its rival Polycom. The interoperability is delivered as a software upgrade to the Tandberg Telepresence Server.
Tandberg’s server already enables interoperability with non-telepresence Tandberg video endpoints and with Microsoft Office Communications Server. However, until now, the vast majority of immersive telepresence systems on the market have been extremely proprietary. Telepresence systems are generally unable to maintain the immersive, multi-screen, high-definition experience they are known for when a session is transmitted across vendors. In many cases telepesence systems from different vendors can’t communciate with each other at all.
The new interoperability from Tandberg claims to deliver that telepresence quality to sessions between Tandberg and Polycom products. This ineroperability will be especially important to inter-enterprise communications, enabling Tandberg customers to communicate and collaborate with Polycom customers.
There is no word on whether Tandberg will add interoperability with its other major telepresence rival, Cisco, but in this announcement the company said it will “continue to build on its successes by working to develop immersive interoperability with additional telepresence systems – both proprietary and standards-based.”
April 16, 2009 7:17 PM
Posted by: Shamus McGillicuddy
, IP Telephony
Cisco Systems and Bell Canada thought they had won the bidding for a municipal IP telephony contract with Ottawa worth between $4 million and $7 million. But as I mentioned in a story today about a new fixed-mobile convergence offering, Mitel Networks has – at least temporarily – scuttled the deal.
Mitel is headquartered in Ottawa, and no doubt it blanched at the possibility that Cisco would supply IP telephony to the city it calls home (Currently the city government has about 10,000 phones, 7,000 of which are from Mitel).
After learning that his company was not the winning bidder for the telephony contract, Mitel chairman Terry Matthews tried to sweeten his company’s offer. He sent a letter to the city offering to donate $2 million worth of Mitel IP phones (10,000 phones in all) to the city if it agreed to make Mitel its sole communications vendor “for the next several years.”
After receiving this last-minute offer, the economic affairs committee of Ottawa’s city council voted to suspend negotiations with Cisco and Bell while it explored the legality and feasibility of such an offer.
According to the Ottawa Citizen, Cisco will refrain from commenting on the Ottawa affair until the city completes its procurement process. However, Bell spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis told the paper, “We’re disappointed. We put in a compelling and competitive bid.”
As I recall from my days as a newspaper reporter, the bidding process for municipal procurement tends to be very strict. There are lots of legal and ethical issues that could come up. I’ve seen vendors sue municipalities, claiming a bidding process was unfair, after losing out on a contract. Clearly Mitel executives think this move is worth whatever legal headaches that might arise if it means keeping Cisco out of their home town. Plus, Mitel could use a big customer win in North America, where Cisco, Avaya and Nortel dominate.