Thunderbolts rained down on Zeus Kerravala last week, each of them aimed at toppling him from that Olympian height that is industry analysis. His crime? A blog where he dared express favorable views about Cisco's place in the UC market and (horrors!) critical ones about Microsoft's.
The Commentors on Zeus' blog raise, in my opinion, a number of very valid points regarding Microsoft's role in the UC market. But, truth be told, some of their remarks didn't sit well with my inner industry analyst, who strives to write criticisms that are at once constructive and accurate, fair and balanced. So at the risk of opening myself up to the same kind of analyst hating Zeus received, I've prepared some comments on the Commentors. I’m trusting that all concerned don't take this as a personal attack, but rather in the "I'd like to set the record straight" spirit in which it's intended.
***
sleylandfy5: It would be good to understand why you think Cisco are leading MS and MS have a weak offer, when they sell circa $5billion of UC software a year. A figure that dwarfs Cisco's UC sales.
sleylandfy5 sure, my definition of UC is split into 4 areas: Sharepoint $3billion; Quad probably close to 0. Exchange $1.5billion; Webex Connect probably not even 10% of MS share. OCS $0.4billion; Jabber/webex connect possibly closer perhaps 20% share of large enterprise? Voice $0.1billion and Cisco are running at about a $1billion.
Microsoft has a $5 billion UC business, $4.5 billion of which is made up of SharePoint and email sales.
Arguing for or against this point boils down to that eternal (and eternally tiresome) "how do you define UC" question. Does the definition of UC extend to Exchange messaging and SharePoint collaboration because that's what Microsoft happens to sell? Or does the definition extend to TelePresence and room-based video conferencing systems because that’s what Cisco happens to sell? It's become clear in the last five years that any communications vendor can take damn near any product they happen to sell and call it UC.
The problem with this approach is it's impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons. It's also nigh on impossible to have a coherent conversation in a blog's comments field because everybody is talking about something somewhat different. That's where slick marketing has taken us, and I guess we've just got to live with it.
For clarity's sake, I take a minimalist's view of UC. A UC solution has got to have enterprise voice (or IP telephony or whatever you want to call it), it's got to have secure instant messaging and presence, and there needs to be some level of audio, desktop video and web conferencing. You can tack on loads of other stuff, whatever your technology developer of choice happens to have in its portfolio or happens to be particularly good at selling. And you can get all abstract about all the business benefits UC drives. But keeping to my minimalistic approach helps me compare what multiple vendors actually have and where they stand in the market.
So, assuming sleylandfy5's figures are accurate, Microsoft has a $500 million UC business. This, in my eyes, is damned impressive, given that in 2004 Microsoft had nothing. There's no need to inflate the figure with email and collaboration sales to make the software giant appear larger than it already is in the UC space.
DazMR2: No matter what Cisco calls their IP Telephony platform, it's IP Telephony not Unified Communications. IP Telephony is a change in underlying transport from digital or analog.
DazMR2: Cisco lead the IP Telephony market. They can call it UC but it's still IP Telephony. For the rest of the stack they are still playing catch up.
Sure, Cisco's IP telephony platform--Unified Communications Manager--is IP telephony, an IP PBX. It's not a unified communications platform per se. I razzed Cisco about the CallManager-to-UCM product name change years ago. They essentially laughed good-naturedly and told me (and the industry) to deal with it. So let's consider it dealt with and move on.
So while Unified Communications Manager may not be a full-blown UC solution in its own right, match it with Cisco Unified Presence and the solution delivers the same kind of telephony, corporate instant messaging and IM presence functionality as Microsoft delivers with the current version of OCS and the upcoming Lync software. We can argue endlessly over whether Microsoft or Cisco's solution is technically superior, more mature, more widely adopted, more fully featured, better integrated with other applications. But it's not realistic to simply dismiss Cisco as not having a UC solution. Cisco is a leader in the UC market. One more thing we all need to deal with and move on.
And I should point out that it's not just Cisco vs. Microsoft when it comes to a solution that combines enterprise voice, presence and enterprise instant messaging. Other developers that can deliver this include Aastra (with its Unified Communications Platform), Alcatel-Lucent (with OmniPCX Enterprise and the OmniTouch Suite), Avaya (with Avaya Aura Communications Manager and Avaya Aura Presence Server), IBM (with Lotus Sametime and PBX integration with or without Sametime Unified Telephony), ShoreTel (with its ShoreGear switches and the ShoreTel Communicator software), and Siemens (with OpenScape Voice and OpenScape UC). Can all of these companies bring powerful products like SharePoint and TelePresence to bear on their UC solutions? Some, maybe, but not all of them. But are their customers adopting their UC solutions that--without any help from Microsoft--deliver telephony, instant messaging, presence and other functionality? They sure are.
sleylandfy5 sure, my definition of UC is split into 4 areas: Sharepoint $3billion; Quad probably close to 0. Exchange $1.5billion; Webex Connect probably not even 10% of MS share. OCS $0.4billion; Jabber/webex connect possibly closer perhaps 20% share of large enterprise? Voice $0.1billion and Cisco are running at about a $1billion.
Microsoft has a $5 billion UC business, $4.5 billion of which is made up of SharePoint and email sales.
Arguing for or against this point boils down to that eternal (and eternally tiresome) "how do you define UC" question. Does the definition of UC extend to Exchange messaging and SharePoint collaboration because that's what Microsoft happens to sell? Or does the definition extend to TelePresence and room-based video conferencing systems because that’s what Cisco happens to sell? It's become clear in the last five years that any communications vendor can take damn near any product they happen to sell and call it UC.
The problem with this approach is it's impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons. It's also nigh on impossible to have a coherent conversation in a blog's comments field because everybody is talking about something somewhat different. That's where slick marketing has taken us, and I guess we've just got to live with it.
For clarity's sake, I take a minimalist's view of UC. A UC solution has got to have enterprise voice (or IP telephony or whatever you want to call it), it's got to have secure instant messaging and presence, and there needs to be some level of audio, desktop video and web conferencing. You can tack on loads of other stuff, whatever your technology developer of choice happens to have in its portfolio or happens to be particularly good at selling. And you can get all abstract about all the business benefits UC drives. But keeping to my minimalistic approach helps me compare what multiple vendors actually have and where they stand in the market.
So, assuming sleylandfy5's figures are accurate, Microsoft has a $500 million UC business. This, in my eyes, is damned impressive, given that in 2004 Microsoft had nothing. There's no need to inflate the figure with email and collaboration sales to make the software giant appear larger than it already is in the UC space.
DazMR2: No matter what Cisco calls their IP Telephony platform, it's IP Telephony not Unified Communications. IP Telephony is a change in underlying transport from digital or analog.
DazMR2: Cisco lead the IP Telephony market. They can call it UC but it's still IP Telephony. For the rest of the stack they are still playing catch up.
DazMR2: Cisco lead the IP Telephony market. They can call it UC but it's still IP Telephony. For the rest of the stack they are still playing catch up.
Sure, Cisco's IP telephony platform--Unified Communications Manager--is IP telephony, an IP PBX. It's not a unified communications platform per se. I razzed Cisco about the CallManager-to-UCM product name change years ago. They essentially laughed good-naturedly and told me (and the industry) to deal with it. So let's consider it dealt with and move on.
So while Unified Communications Manager may not be a full-blown UC solution in its own right, match it with Cisco Unified Presence and the solution delivers the same kind of telephony, corporate instant messaging and IM presence functionality as Microsoft delivers with the current version of OCS and the upcoming Lync software. We can argue endlessly over whether Microsoft or Cisco's solution is technically superior, more mature, more widely adopted, more fully featured, better integrated with other applications. But it's not realistic to simply dismiss Cisco as not having a UC solution. Cisco is a leader in the UC market. One more thing we all need to deal with and move on.
And I should point out that it's not just Cisco vs. Microsoft when it comes to a solution that combines enterprise voice, presence and enterprise instant messaging. Other developers that can deliver this include Aastra (with its Unified Communications Platform), Alcatel-Lucent (with OmniPCX Enterprise and the OmniTouch Suite), Avaya (with Avaya Aura Communications Manager and Avaya Aura Presence Server), IBM (with Lotus Sametime and PBX integration with or without Sametime Unified Telephony), ShoreTel (with its ShoreGear switches and the ShoreTel Communicator software), and Siemens (with OpenScape Voice and OpenScape UC). Can all of these companies bring powerful products like SharePoint and TelePresence to bear on their UC solutions? Some, maybe, but not all of them. But are their customers adopting their UC solutions that--without any help from Microsoft--deliver telephony, instant messaging, presence and other functionality? They sure are.
Maalekar: Microsoft already has 5 different companies making LESS expensive phones than Cisco...
Handsets...Microsoft's UC proponents can attack Cisco in lots of different ways, but handsets is not the best angle to take. OCS 2007 R2 has only officially supported those incredibly clunky looking phones based on the Microsoft's reference design. snom reverse engineered some proprietary Microsoft technology to add OCS support for an entire line of its IP phones. This was done without Microsoft's blessing and some folks at Microsoft I spoke with earlier this year seemed rather miffed that snom had the gall to take initiative without Microsoft’s official okey-dokey. But maybe that's water under the bridge now, what with Microsoft having finally tested the phones for interoperability with OCS 2007 R2 and welcomed snom into its UC developer fold.
Polycom will be delivering a new set of handsets for Lync (the CX500 and CX600 devices), as will Aastra (the 6721ip and 6725ip devices). That's two Lync handsets from Polycom and two from Aastra, with one model from each of the companies being an ultra-low-end phone with no display. Working under the assumption the low-end device will be deployed mainly in lobbies and for this reason will not be widely adopted, then each company has one Lync-compatible handset suitable for use by office workers.
On a related note, neither Polycom's nor Aastra's new Lync phones will be compatible with the current version of OCS, so they cannot be deployed with Microsoft's UC solutions currently adopted by Microsoft customers...at least not until the upgrade to Lync. The six snom phones, on the other hand, will be compatible with both the current and upcoming versions of Microsoft's UC solution.
By comparison, Cisco has a very full range of IP phones (as do all other UC competitors with a PBX heritage). Microsoft simply can't compare...at least not yet. We've already seen Microsoft's stance change from an aggressive "we don’t need no stinkin' desk phones" marketing message to a "here's some more phones for ya" set of partnership announcements. Microsoft now seems to realize that phones are an essential part of UC deployments, and with this realization I expect to see more Lync-compatible devices down the road.
Or maybe there are more Lync-compatible devices available now I’m not aware of. Maalekar refers to five handset developers, whereas I only know of three: Aastra, Polycom, and snom. Let me know which two I'm missing. It would be great to hear of more.
Maalekar: [Cisco] has nothing BUT proprietary technology out there I'm going to leave this one pretty much alone. Both Cisco and Microsoft have plenty of proprietary technology in their UC solutions, and both Cisco and Microsoft conform with selected industry standards they've cherry-picked for multivendor interoperability and facilitating third-party development. One company dinging the other for having proprietary technology creates a pot/kettle situation that neither company truly benefits from.
Maalekar Cisco will be spending the next 3 to 4 years just trying to get the integration of all of their acquisitions working together. Meanwhile, Microsoft UC, being SOFTWARE based, will add features by the score.
Microsoft proponents need to be kind of careful here. Cisco's UC solution is also software based. Unified Communications Manager is software that resides on a server, and was so before LCS was a gleam in Microsoft's eye. Unified Presence is the same, as is Cisco's various collaboration and social networking software. So this argument doesn't hold water unless there is a further point Maalekar planned but failed to make.
And as far as getting all of one’s technology working together, no argument that Cisco has its work cut out for it when it comes to product integration. But I notice that full integration with SharePoint didn't come in 2005 with LCS, or in 2007 with OCS, or in the R2 software update, but in Lync--the third generation of the Microsoft UC software. There's nothing wrong with that...just pointing out that Microsoft has integration issues of its own that it's been working through.
Maalekar: My only question is...how much did Cisco bonus you, Zues?
Guiness: I sure hope the check clears for ya buddy...
Guiness: I sure hope the check clears for ya buddy...
I'm sorry, but comments like this are not only unfounded but also unprofessional. When I blogged about Microsoft being a present, not future threat in the PBX market Cisco and Avaya proponents didn't accuse me of being on the dole. Allow people to voice their opinions. If you don't agree, talk them out of them. Offer proof points. Agree to disagree. But casting aspersions? We've got to be bigger than that.
fdoremieux570: Also remember that for Microsoft voice is a comparatively newer workload, so it's not entirely surprising that it's smaller than Exchange and Sharepoint (quick note for Zeus: it's one word--not being able to spell the name of the products you talk authoritatively about just undermines the authority).
Straight from the "goes around/comes around" department--Quick note for fdoremieux570: It's SharePoint (capital P), not Sharepoint. Not being able to spell the name of yadda yadda yadda. Come on, it's a blog. Typos happen. You got Zeus. I got you. Someone else will get me. Big deal.
As for your point that a telephony product is new for Microsoft, I agree completely. Enterprise voice is new for Microsoft, whereas OCS's IM and presence functionality is much more widely deployed. Just as enterprise IM is comparatively new for Cisco and other PBX developers, with their IP telephony position in the market much more established. This is what makes the Cisco vs. Microsoft wrestling match so darn interesting. Each contender has one powerfully muscular arm and one tiny underdeveloped one. The question is who will be able to build up strength where currently little exists. But--at the risk of running this metaphor into the ground--strength actually needs to be built in that weak arm. The wrester can't just lean on a crutch like TelePresence or SharePoint to pretend the weakness doesn't exist.
fdoremieux570: VoiceCon published the results of their IP-PBX RFP in March, showing that OCS/Lync was fully compliant and was the cheapest of the various offerings they evaluated, including Cisco. Therefore it's clear that from a technical, product capability point of view, Microsoft Lync is fully capable of competing.
Ah yes, the VoiceCon RFP. Where for some reason I've never understood a Microsoft product just announced, not shipping, not deployed, at that time unavailable for testing, for all practical purposes in terms information available at the time existing only as slideware was pitted against a set of generally available IP PBXs. It was a good introduction to what was then called Microsoft Office Communications Server "14" at a time when there was very little information available on it. But it would be like me issuing a detailed comparison of OCS 2007 R2 against versions of Cisco, Avaya, Siemens Enterprise and other UC solutions that are not set to ship until a year from now. It would be an unfair comparison. And as for which UC solution will be least expensive, I'll hold judgment until Microsoft is shipping Lync, has announced its pricing, and there are real-world Lync deployments whose cost can be accurately tallied up by independent consultants who are into that sort of thing.
In terms of Lync being fully capable of competing, I have no beef with statements like that. In fact I'd add that it’s not just Lync. OCS 2007 R2 has proven itself fully capable of competing head-to-head with traditional PBX systems. There are enough documented instances where OCS 2007 R2 either partially or completely replaces a traditional PBX. It's happened in midsized enterprises. It's happening in large enterprises. Lync clearly promises to continue this trend.
sleylandfy5: Cisco are excellent at marketing and talking about UC but their products don't stack up. I work with customers everyday who want the Cisco hype to turn into reality but they are a long way short of their marketing hype.
If you're going to criticize hype, you can't confine your comments to Cisco. Microsoft has created years of hype around LCS, then OCS, and now Lync. Avaya created it around Aura and Flare. Siemens Enterprise around OpenScape. ShoreTel around simplicity. And Polycom...ok, you got me there. Polycom doesn't really create hype, does it? Damned good products. But no hype.
DazMR2 Video leadership? Better check in with Polycom, the last time I looked they were the market leader.
For the past several years Polycom and Tandberg were leaders in the market for room-based video conferencing systems. Cisco bought Tandberg, so now Cisco is a market leader. Which is THE market leader? You can check your IDC or Frost & Sullivan or Gartner charts for that. But just because one company has the #1 spot and another company is a close #2 doesn’t mean they're both not leading the market.
DazMR2: Social networking? SharePoint is an existing multi BILLION dollar cash cow product for Microsoft. Capability wise it does everything that QUAD can and more, including video integration, communities and social networking.
Guinness: ...Microsoft leads the Enterprise Social Network MQ with their platform of OCS/Lync, Sharepoint, and embedded collab features across Office...
Guinness: ...Microsoft leads the Enterprise Social Network MQ with their platform of OCS/Lync, Sharepoint, and embedded collab features across Office...
Some say SharePoint delivers enterprise social networking. Others say it doesn’t. I’m not going to quibble. But I will point out that SharePoint seems to be whatever Microsoft proponents want it to be. First Microsoft’s $3 billion business in SharePoint is proof the company leads the UC market. Now Microsoft’s $3 billion business in SharePoint is proof the company leads the social networking software market. SharePoint is this magic wand that Harry Potter pulls out, waves around, and makes anything happen.
Guinness: The point here is that SOCIAL Collaboration should be a feature of software itself, not something that you bolt on in an resold version of LifeRay that hides six Cisco acquisitions and masquerades as a platform.
Less a comment than a request this time...Guinness: Can you elaborate on the "resold version of LifeRay" comment? Is the argument here that Cisco is licensing the LifeRay portal and using it as a front end to Quad? I've not heard this and would welcome more info.
DazMR2: Cloud? Ever heard of BPOS? Enterprises are moving into the cloud with Microsoft TODAY. Lots of them. On PROVEN technology. For mail (Exchange), collaboration (SharePoint), conferencing (Live Meeting), UC (Office Communicator Online.) Even the carriers resell it.
BPOS and Office Communications Online...there's a topic we don't really see enough on here at NoJitter. Yep, definitely heard of them. Heard they're really good for businesses looking to avoid cap ex expenditure when implementing UC and email and collaboration and so forth. Heard that Microsoft has a lot of happy, satisfied customers using them. Also heard carriers and other partners offering cloud-based services of their own complain of directly competing with Microsoft's online services.
Which is why Cisco has for years been delivering platforms (Hosted Unified Communications Server, and now Hosted Collaboration Solution) on which its carriers and other partners can build their own services. Will Cisco at some point in the future branch out and offer self-hosted services akin to Microsoft BPOS? I wouldn't put it past them, especially if carriers keep dragging their heels on making infrastructure investments needed to deploy cloud-based UC services.
I think Microsoft has a winning approach with BPOS generally and Office Communications Online. Deliver services of your own to seed the market, prove that the services can sell, and don't depend solely on the slow-moving Goliaths that dominate the carrier world. Then, once it's proven that there's a market for cloud-based UC, turn the services over to partners and just provide the underlying technology for them. Though Microsoft clearly hasn't reached that later stage just yet. Will be interesting to see if they ever do.
***
In sum, I don't feel that the Commenters present particularly convincing arguments for Microsoft and against Cisco. Rather, they come across as having chips on their shoulders, so threatened by Cisco that they need to pull out all stops. The effect does not convince, but rather raises eyebrows, making readers--this one at least--wonder why "the lady doth protest too much." I mean, if Microsoft is in the UC market's catbird seat to the degree the Commenters claim, why the need for this dust-up?
I have considerable respect for the role Cisco has played in shaking up the PBX market, forcing all competitors in the space to completely rethink their product strategies. I equally respect the role Microsoft is now playing in once again shaking things up, forcing Cisco and everyone else to make instant messaging, presence and collaboration an integral part of their communications solutions. Both have formidable UC solutions that are strong in some areas, weak in others.
My opinion is that the Microsoft UC solution doesn’t need defense of the kind that followed up Zeus's blog. It's technically strong, increasingly mature, very well positioned, and backed by strong marketing and a very well trained set of resellers. It's doing increasingly well in the market--widely deployed for corporate IM, increasingly relied on for enterprise voice. Microsoft still has a long way to go before OCS, and now Lync, lives up to all the promises that for years have been woven around it. But there’s plenty of time for that in the years to come.
