When one of my IT buddies told me that "proprietary is not a bad thing," I listened. Hosted Voice isn't as good or as carefully crafted for most businesses as it should it be and I've pondered this ever since Dave Michels and I debated Lync in Microsoft Lync: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?
What's changed since our debate? The more I review hosted voice services among the competitors, the less I like what I find. One of my buddies came to me early in the year for a recommendation for a hosted voice solution. Nothing seemed to fit just right. After speaking with a couple of hosted Exchange providers, I felt empty-handed in relaying to my buddy that Lync wasn't quite ready for the hosted space. That particular provider that wasn't Lync ready was bought by another competitor. Later, I spent hours on a conference call with SalesForce and my buddy but got nowhere. In fact while my buddy hammered the tech at SalesForce with integrating-voice questions, I gathered all the voice integration notes from the SalesForce knowledge base that I could find. This led nowhere quickly. I even contacted a SIP provider that had integration notes on their site to work with Sales Force--again, I got nowhere.
Here are the key issues that concern me most with hosted voice services:
* Solutions are home grown or contain home grown components
* Services don’t really integrate into desktop applications
* Offerings lack value
Microsoft is no different than any other PBX manufacturer when it comes to using something proprietary. As I've argued in the past, PBXs and even Apple contain proprietary elements that translate to getting what works with the same consistency and life expectancy that voice users know. Again, Microsoft is no different and of course I'm a Microsoft user and probably always will be. While we use Macs primarily, in the field we use Microsoft and in the office our virtual Microsoft runs on our Macs.
I want to get to the heart of my argument for hosted voice and that Lync is better than most hosted voice services. When customers want hosted voice they have various reasons and ideas and many hinge on cost or avoiding CAPEX, and some users are simply tired of investing in hardware.
Lync does provide value, does integrate into desktop applications and is a product that is backed by a company that can stand behind it. The extra value comes in when there are plenty of IT-qualified folks that work on Microsoft products either as employees or as contractors for customers. This propels my thinking again back in time to a place when we first started selling IP-PBXs (1999), and the advertising we used from 3Com pitched the contrasting old ways of having two guys under a desk (one IT and one Telephone tech) to service a customer vs. the new way of having just one guy under a desk servicing the same customer while taking care of both needs (voice & data). I think Microsoft has made this close to a reality in the enterprise space, just like Apple has with the mass adoption of i-devices in the consumer environment.
Still, there are turn-offs about Lync such as costs, lack of features and availability of hardware that operates with Lync. I would still encourage any business to consider hosted Lync over other hosted voice services. A turn-on about Lync in the hosted space is the ability to get voice, UC and Exchange (mail) and avoid servers, IT support, licensing and maintenance.
Hosted voice providers must have staying power and market penetration to survive. The existing hosted voice providers face extinction should Microsoft get wise and reduce the cost of bundled Lync services. Lync offers voice and UC elements that already reach into the applications of Microsoft.
When comparing hosted voice services, the very first thing is presence, and many lack this with any formidable UC package. Providers are too busy building their customer bases and keeping up with churn while seemingly unaware of the total needs of users. They don't have the integration, or depth of integration, that Microsoft maintains, and their development efforts pale in any comparative sense to Microsoft.
Lync could fizzle tomorrow, but that is very unlikely. Hosted voice providers are spending a lot of energy developing their own home grown solutions using open source elements. These solutions vary and this is a huge weakness when attempting to merge two companies using different platforms, especially when changes face the customers.
eZuce OpenUC is an open solution that talks to Apple, Linux and Microsoft and already is developed. Adoption of a platform such as eZuce by hosted voice providers just makes sense to compete against Lync. This would at least harmonize their platforms and ease customer migrations during mergers and acquisitions.
Customers that sign on to hosted voice and UC services without giving thought to the future may be in for a jolt if their hosted providers merge. For those that offer no UC features and application integration, or maintain home grown elements, I think these providers will suffer early retirements or never reach any significant market appreciation to either propel their businesses or to sell them.
Just like a PBX with hundreds of features, Microsoft has the potential to become that "PBX Killer," but it won't be without work, continuous improvement, lowered costs and meeting ongoing expectations. Again, I have to chuckle--Microsoft wanted for years to kill the PBX and it's the very role that they are now assuming. They too will have to grow in features to ensure that their solution fits into numerous verticals just like PBXs. I'll be able to give you a full report on what I think about Hosted Lync real soon. Until then, for those interested, visit Welcome to Hosted Lync!
