As communication and collaboration platforms and software become more advanced, enterprises are trying to find ways to keep up without having to spend a small fortune.
Avaya has recently announced a new offering –Avaya Communications Outsourcing Solutions (COS)–aimed at managing communication operations of a company. Moving into managed services is a smart move for Avaya, as many companies with aging communications infrastructures would like to make improvements but may be constricted by a budget.
In fact, Ed Nalbandian, vice president of Avaya Operations Services told me recently that these are the types of companies that are benefiting the most from this offering. By offering a managed service and charging per month, enterprises can migrate from their older infrastructure while reducing risk of performance issues and avoiding a big investment.
Matrix, the front-end management platform for COS customers is cloud-based, providing a private cloud-like environment for the user. Customers really want a transparent view of their infrastructure, Nalbandian said. The offering also offers multi-vendor support, which makes sense given UC is a bit of a mixed vendor environment.
While enterprises seem to be selectively outsourcing, the managed service trend appears to be growing for enterprises struggling with product upgrades and tight budgets. As vendors continue to develop and grow communications and collaboration offerings, demand for managed services for communications infrastructures from enterprises could certainly increase.
Walk down the streets of a busy city and you’ll find people glued to their mobile devices, texting, checking their email or doing something else with their smartphones. That “something else” is nothing short of revolutionary.
Beyond playing games or interacting on social networks, people are accessing information literally on-the-go. Increasingly, what they’re accessing extends well beyond consumer-centric information into the work-related realm. Enterprises are looking to build enterprise app stores to securely deploy and manage mobile enterprise applications.
Similar to consumer-based app stores, like iTunes, the enterprise app store is a concept with which any smartphone user should be very familiar. As opposed to browsing a catalog of hundreds of thousands of apps — which may or may not have been tested and curated — “customers” (employees) are instead offered any number of mobile applications to download to improve productivity.
The benefits of creating an enterprise app store should be rather self-evident. First of all, enterprise app stores replicate public app stores by extending the familiar user-centric view of application deployment. Enterprise app stores also provide organizations with a means to deploy custom applications in a private and secure fashion, bypassing public infrastructure and approval processes to disseminate the applications.
Do you remember what you were doing on July 10, 2008? Let me jog your memory a bit by rephrasing the question: How did you react when Apple launched the iTunes App Store? You know, the marketplace that in just three years amassed over 500,000 applications for iPhones, iPods and iPads?
Research in Motion (RIM) was undoubtedly the pioneer in mobile messaging with its iconic BlackBerry devices, but Apple reinvented our perspective on smartphones by suggesting we could do almost anything with our mobile devices. How can we forget the catchphrase, “There’s an app for that”?
While we have collectively fallen in love with slaying pigs on Angry Birds, remembering a forgotten song with Shazam or checking into our favorite coffee shop with FourSquare, another mobility trend emerged — the consumerization of enterprise mobility.
The hype around unified communications (UC) has been percolating for years, yet by and large there’s been a disconnect (pun intended) among enterprises to develop and execute forward-thinking, comprehensive UC strategies. Ready or not, the consumerization of IT is forcing enterprises to plug into UC, and ironically, the productivity needs of end users.
The meteoric acceleration of innovation in the mobility space and the global domination of social networking has even best-of-breed companies—or technology innovators—struggling to keep pace, let alone anticipate how mobile device types and collaborative applications are likely to evolve, and plan accordingly. Inarguably, the challenge is a formidable one. By some estimates, the speed of mobile innovation is two times faster than it was just five years ago. There are currently close to 450,000 available iPhone apps alone, which is about twice as many as there were this time last year. Prior to 2010, tablets weren’t even in the picture.
The rapid evolution of collaboration and mobility technologies took off about the same time as the economy tapered off. Year-over-year budget cuts had IT departments doing more with less, and necessitated a “triage” approach to IT needs over a strategic one. Though IT budgets are on the rise, the influx of employee-liable smart devices—a.k.a. the BYOD (bring your own device) movement—and the subsequent user demand for network access via multiple mobile operating platforms and device types, social networking and other collaboration applications like CEBP, has IT fielding requests on an ad hoc basis.
To varying degrees, many enterprise organizations are letting end-user demand steer their UC strategies, as getting ahead of the innovation curve has simply proved to be too much. This forced shift from the traditional top-down management model to a more bottom-up approach is at last giving substance to years of UC hype.
The core purpose of UC is to enhance overall productivity based in large part on the specific needs of individual end users and the applications they use day-to-day. Lack of time and budget has historically fueled the already difficult task of identifying and accurately assessing end-user need, a key element of successful UC deployment strategies. The consumerization of IT and the BYOD trend are reinforcing the original aim of enterprise UC—helping users maximize collaboration, improve operation efficiency and provide a platform for innovation that will sustain long-term viability.
In an unsolicited bid, Microsoft bought Skype for $8.5 billion, roughly 10 times Skype’s 2010 annual revenues. The company’s questionable investment in Skype has reignited speculation about Microsoft’s indeterminate future based in part on Microsoft’s past acquisition bungles.
Dissension in the ranks at Microsoft has arguably contributed to the company’s ineffective acquisition assimilations and habitually slow product releases. IB Times’ Jake Thompson spelled out three reasons why Microsoft’s buyout of Skype will fail, ultimately tracking back to Microsoft’s dysfunctional corporate culture.
With Skype, Microsoft has committed to an important change in its organizational structure that may help the company overcome some of the obstacles it faced with past acquisitions. The Skype division will be reporting directly to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer—a new strategy for Microsoft.
When Tandberg, then Polycom’s biggest competitor, was acquired by Cisco back in October, 2009, and Logitech acquired LifeSize just three weeks later, Polycom emerged from the consolidation chaos as the last pure-play UC, video and voice provider standing. Polycom has since parlayed an ominous position – one mired in industry-wide speculation about an imminent takeover – into an impressive success story both for Polycom and for the enterprise video and unified communications market. With Microsoft’s recent acquisition Skype, Polycom is again challenged to turn uncertainty into opportunity, and few companies are better matched for the challenge.
Cisco’s takeover of Tandberg left Polycom with two choices: succumb to takeover or takeover the unified communications’ industry – more specifically Cisco’s long-held grip on the market share. Polycom chose the latter, structuring an aggressive campaign to gain market share over Cisco while bringing to fruition the company’s UC Everywhere vision. Today Polycom has an estimated 40% share of the video conferencing market, backed by industry consensus that Polycom is winning the market share over Cisco.
The start of the Polycom revolution
Polycom enlisted a visionary leader to head up the company’s aggressive new strategy, the company’s own EVP of Global Field Operations, Andrew Miller. With experience as a former executive with both Cisco and Tandberg and an impressive 28-year career in technology and sales, Miller was tailor-made to spearhead Polycom’s aggressive strategy as CEO.
With a know-thy-enemy tactical recruiting strategy, Miller made quick work of pulling together a formidable executive management team, appointing former Cisco powerhouse, Joseph Burton, as Polycom’s senior vice president, chief strategist and CTO, along with other notable hires from Tandberg, Motorola, Oracle and Xerox. The company recently announced new additions to its executive line up to help push Polycom’s global growth initiative.
Microsoft announced its plans today to buy Skype for $8.5 billion. Skype is obviously a behemoth in consumer VoIP and desktop video conferencing, but it has been trying to claw its way into the enterprise over the past year. It exhibited at Enterprise Connect–formerly VoiceCon–for the first time this year, boasting enterprise customers such as Netflix in a keynote address.
Is Microsoft the perfect vessel for Skype to finally break into the enterprise?
Maybe. Enterprise unified communications (UC) pros have been consistently ambivalent if not outright skeptical of Skype’s ability to be a true enterprise UC player–and that includes IT pros using Skype in their environments today.
David Gurlé, vice president and general manager of Skype Enterprise (Skype’s enterprise business unit), told me in January that Skype has no intention of competing with incumbent UC vendors, such as Cisco and Avaya:
“We are not in the substitution market. We are in the complementary market,” he said. “It’s kind of an overlay across other communications infrastructure and application that people have deployed.”
But that is likely to change under Microsoft, which holds a large chunk of the overall UC market with its Lync 2010 server and legacy Office Communications Server (OCS) footprint. Microsoft spokespeople declined to comment specifically on how Skype might fit into Lync, which has its own desktop video software, but Microsoft’s press release offers a taste of what’s to come:
Skype will support Microsoft devices like Xbox and Kinect, Windows Phone and a wide array of Windows devices, and Microsoft will connect Skype users with Lync, Outlook, Xbox Live and other communities. Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms.
It seems pretty clear why any UC vendor aligns with Skype: access to its user base.
This is why Logitech LifeSize recently announced its federation capabilities with Skype video conferencing a few weeks ago. Avaya, which plans to federate with Skype later this year, is also after its half-a-billion registered user base. No word yet from those vendors about what the acquisition will mean for these relationships.
Aside from the fact that Skype has been a juicy acquisition prospect for some time, Microsoft obviously sees the value in owning Skype’s massive user base. The dividends are probably much higher for Microsoft on the consumer side (especially federating Skype with its Xbox Live community and Kinect products), but don’t count it out for the enterprise. UC pros are looking for some quality, reliability and support reassurances before embracing Skype. Say what you will about Microsoft’s track record with product development (yes, we’ve heard the “Blue Screen of Skype” jokes–and love them), but it has a huge install base and has earned a heck of a lot more trust from UC pros than Skype has.
UPDATE: An Avaya spokeswoman says Avaya will continue to “honor that agreement” to support Skype for its customers.
The many ways in which people can now communicate, collaborate and access information have evolved dramatically in recent years, particularly over the last year with the explosion of tablet devices. Smartphones, social networking, Skype, Google Voice, IM and social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter are pulling end users away from the stodgy desk phone. Some traditional phone vendors have made admirable strides to keep pace with trends in unified communications and collaboration, providing feature-rich, integrated desk phones, but do end users really care?
There is a growing percentage of employees opting for softphone clients or smart mobile devices over the desk phone. Alaa Saayed, industry analyst for unified communications at Frost & Sullivan, says there are indications that softphone clients are actually gaining traction, but says IP desk phones will not be leaving the desktop anytime soon.
Though many end users prefer their smart or dual-mode mobile devices and softphones, Saayed says end users are actually holding up the shift to softphones. “We’ve heard one enterprise say that while 70% of managers wanted to consolidate devices, 70% of end users didn’t,” according to Saayed.
Choosing a cloud-based unified communications provider isn’t easy, and cloud computing providers aren’t doing much to help matters. The lack of unbiased, apples-to-apples comparisons of cloud-based UC service provider offerings and specific service descriptions from providers has left many enterprises confused.
Regular SearchUnifiedCommunications.com contributor Gary Audin of Delphi, Inc., has teamed up with Webtorials.com to produce the 2011 Sourcebook of Hosted and Cloud-Based VoIP and Unified Communications Services. This comprehensive, 100-page sourcebook is based, in part, on a survey of UC service providers conducted by Delphi, Inc.
According to Audin, the confusion about UC cloud services stems from a lack of consensus on what to call the service and grows from here. Some service providers call their service hosted unified communications, and other cloud-based communications providers use Unified Communications as a Service (UCaaS) to describe their services. Continued »
I know some of you are big-time Skype fans, but when you have call quality issues when talking to Skype via Skype, there’s a problem.
Let me back up a bit.
I’ve never been a Skype user, which probably strikes a lot of people as absurd. But I don’t have a webcam or any close friends and family outside the States, so the 472 other communications tools available to me have worked just fine.
Yet like a lot of consumers (and enterprises), I’ve been looking at the bills from my service provider and wondering if I could reduce telecom costs. Did I really need a land line? Especially when Skype charges $3 per month for unlimited U.S. and Canada calls, which makes the let’s-not-even-go-there monthly rate my cable company charges for residential VoIP all the more heart-wrenching. If this were just a personal decision, it’d be easy. But I work from home occasionally, and my job relies so heavily the ability to understand people on the phone clearly enough that I can accurately quote them. Even with the vast improvements to mobile networks in terms of quality and coverage, cell phone interviews are still a last resort for me.
I figured it couldn’t hurt to give Skype a shot though. Loved ones always make the best guinea pigs, so I first tried making a personal call first to someone who was on a cell phone within a two-mile radius. Quality was perfect on both ends. Feeling bolder, I used it for a phone interview I had scheduled with a U.K.-based market analyst for a news story. Despite getting the green light from Skype’s built-in bandwidth/VoIP call quality testing tool beforehand, the call was pretty awful. The audio was so muffled — not to the point that it was unintelligible, but enough that I found myself spending more energy trying to understand the subject’s words than his meaning.
I chalked up the problems to it being an international call (but was not eager to test Skype for business again). A few weeks later, I wound up working on SearchUnifiedCommunications.com’s recent story about whether enterprises will ever warm up to Skype for business communications. When I interviewed David Gurlé, vice president and general manager of Skype Enterprise (their enterprise business unit), he dialed into the conference line (unsurprisingly) via Skype. I happened to be working from home and using our residential VoIP.
Brought straight to you from the University of Epic Fail, my interview with Skype (via Skype) was like trying to talk to someone who was on a cell phone in the middle of nowhere (though I’m pretty sure they were calling from New York). I had to ask for sentences and entire topics to be repeated multiple times because the quality was just so, so bad and the audio often indecipherable. I couldn’t believe that I was hearing them (well, sort of) tell me about how wonderful their quality and reliability were. It felt like a bad joke.
Maybe I just have bad Skype juju or maybe the problem was on my service provider’s end (though I had no other issues that day). Clearly, there are businesses and IT shops (granted, it seems are they are mostly SMBs) that have no problem with Skype. One IT pro in last week’s story even told me he has experienced more outages and performance problems with his LAN than with Skype. Still, it got me wondering — if Skype can’t even ensure the quality of their own communications, what Fortune 500 is going to rely on them?
If you’re at a large enterprise IT organization that’s using Skype, we’d love to hear from you. Send me an email or comment below.