I don't know if Cisco's PostPath acquisition got too many tongues wagging, but Cisco and Microsoft today released a "progress report" updating last year's Ballmer-Chambers event that sought to settle customers' nerves about possible tension between the 2 companies. Since they share many of the same large customers, it's in Cisco's and Microsoft's interest to keep things patched up, as they acknowledge in today's release:
I don't know if Cisco's PostPath acquisition got too many tongues wagging, but Cisco and Microsoft today released a "progress report" updating last year's Ballmer-Chambers event that sought to settle customers' nerves about possible tension between the 2 companies. Since they share many of the same large customers, it's in Cisco's and Microsoft's interest to keep things patched up, as they acknowledge in today's release:
Though Cisco and Microsoft have long partnered on many technology initiatives, increasing competition between the two companies, particularly in the field of unified communications, has raised concerns with chief information officers. They fear this competition will lead to interoperability issues among products from two of their most important vendors. In response to their customers, Cisco and Microsoft have been collaborating more intently during the last year on ways to improve interoperability among their technologies, especially in areas such as security, mobile communications, application performance, and unified communications.
The current update comes not from the top guys, but from senior VPs Kathy Hill of Cisco and Bob Muglia of Microsoft, the counterparts tasked with managing the relationship. Not to parse too closely or read too much into it, but Hill and Muglia are responsible for all areas of Cisco-Microsoft cooperation, and of the 7 such areas Muglia mentions, UC is not one of the 3 he calls out as "stand[ing] out" as areas of progress over the last year (he cites network optimization, IT architecture, and connected entertainment). What he does say about UC is:
Finally, I think this joint commitment has allowed us to be very upfront and open with our customers about our unified communications offerings, spelling out how we will compete and how our software will work with Cisco products.
He reiterates later in the dialogue:
Although Microsoft and Cisco will continue to compete for customers in the unified communications arena, both of our companies share a joint commitment to ensuring the appropriate level of interoperability between our respective products. We will keep working together to ensure greater clarity in communications-to our customers, partners and sales forces-on how we are competing and cooperating.
Finally, there's this:
How have Cisco and Microsoft been able to juggle this cooperation with their ongoing competition in product arenas such as unified communications?
Kathy Hill: It is fair to say that both companies are aggressive growth engines, so there's going to be overlap in certain markets where we are looking to help our mutual customers. In markets where we intersect like the connected home, unified communications and security, we've made a conscious decision to take extra steps to improve the interoperability of our products for the benefit of customers. And even though unified communications is clearly an area of competition, it is also one of the areas into which we've directed much of our collaborative energy. This has been done in the spirit of giving our customers the choice and flexibility they've told us matters to them.
Bob Muglia: I'd agree. We think competition is great for our customers because, especially in new and fast-growing markets like unified communications, it gives them choices between alternative technologies. And in the long run, competition will help accelerate the market for unified communications by spurring new technologies and driving down costs.
At the same time, we've got people on both Cisco and Microsoft teams tasked with advancing unified communications interoperability working alongside people dedicated to other areas of interoperability. We do this because it is what our customers have expressly asked for.
Kathy Hill: It is fair to say that both companies are aggressive growth engines, so there's going to be overlap in certain markets where we are looking to help our mutual customers. In markets where we intersect like the connected home, unified communications and security, we've made a conscious decision to take extra steps to improve the interoperability of our products for the benefit of customers. And even though unified communications is clearly an area of competition, it is also one of the areas into which we've directed much of our collaborative energy. This has been done in the spirit of giving our customers the choice and flexibility they've told us matters to them.
Bob Muglia: I'd agree. We think competition is great for our customers because, especially in new and fast-growing markets like unified communications, it gives them choices between alternative technologies. And in the long run, competition will help accelerate the market for unified communications by spurring new technologies and driving down costs.
At the same time, we've got people on both Cisco and Microsoft teams tasked with advancing unified communications interoperability working alongside people dedicated to other areas of interoperability. We do this because it is what our customers have expressly asked for.
I think underneath the happy talk, it's clear that these 2 companies are going to be at each other's throats in UC. When Muglia talks about "new and fast-growing markets like unified communications," remember that neither of these 2 companies got where they are today by devoting less than total energy and commitment to seizing such markets.
Marty Parker has suggested here that Cisco's PostPath acquisition is more about putting a Web 2.0 spin on UC/collaboration, whereas I've emphasized its potential for getting Cisco in front of the IT decision-makers who are most influential in purchasing Microsoft OCS--namely, the Exchange team. I don't think this has to be either/or: Marty's view is more strategic, and certainly where Cisco wants to take UC (i.e., more into the network); my view is that this is a bit of a gamble, and if enterprises don't make that move, Cisco needs a play to counter OCS when (not if) OCS becomes a valid PBX replacement.
Your thoughts?
