The Mitel news of late has been very exciting for me but purely for selfish reasons, in hopes that soon, I'll still be able to become a "virtual Interconnect."From a prior post, Convergence Systems and Mitel: Test Driving the Hosted IP-PBX, I discussed some challenges ahead facing Convergence Systems in getting the masses to sign on. Maybe I wasn't emphatic enough so this is dedicated to that purpose with a more directed focus on licensing costs.
First, I want to disclose that Convergence Systems delivered to me a new price list for all their offerings. They are developing the Voxeo platform to strengthen their hosted solutions and by using Voxeo, they were able to reduce the costs of their overall packages--thus the price reductions in the new price list they delivered. This is important to enterprise to note because until you know pricing for any virtualized telephony solution--hosted or not, can you bank on getting the best price? As a side bar--I'll be putting Convergence Systems costs/solutions (Mitel) in front of customers to evaluate.
What I said before about obstacles and Mitel's licensing costs:
* Cost competitiveness, and this may stem back to Mitel licensing costs vs open source solutions. How competitive will the solution stack up against existing solutions including open source? Is Mitel, a traditional manufacturer, ready to change their pricing or will they argue that no change is in order?
An important business question that customers need to be asking Mitel, if you're planning to purchase a virtualized system is, "why should we pay the same thing if we are getting less?"
Maybe that won't sound so good to the factory or the dealers/VARs pitching the solution and pushing the customers. Irwin Lazar argues in Time To Virtualize!, that the time is upon telecom managers to virtualize. I think it's time for holding out and making the impression upon Mitel or any other manufacturer, that because you're not buying a physical box, that licensing and associated costs must be attractive, very attractive.
I liked Irwin's last remark about a hint and (wink-wink). Unrelated to his intended meaning, in old world telephony, wink-wink means don't send digits until both parties (ends) have winked and hooked up-meaning there's more delay built into the initial connection. So what I'm saying (hint-hint) is don't spend money until you know you are getting a good deal.
Somehow my bell shaped headedness tells me that this won't go over real well and customers will come back thinking and even believing that they are in fact getting more value and will end up paying the same or even more than previously. One more thing and this is going to sound strange coming from me--but Mitel's recent claim of success in virtualizing the Ashford Borough Council in the UK discusses great savings, not on the cost to acquire or manage but to operate, that is to say electricity savings of 40-45%. What about the costs to acquire? Green is good but staying in the black is still mandatory.
The other reasons I would delay and delay as long as possible is time and IT. For one, what's offered today will change tomorrow. The other part of this and maybe it makes no difference--is I'd rather see IT servers virtualized first, then move the voice over last and know where it's getting moved to. Even still if the licensing costs don't come down, you can shake your head and buy into the argument that Mitel has to make money too and the sales guys kids need socks. Chances are that you won't arrive home with a half gallon of ice cream unless you are very lucky. Most of you will arrive home with less but you will end up paying more. (hint-hint)
