Microsoft Lync shook up the unified communications market in numerous ways. Simply put, the product approaches communications from a different perspective; and that includes licensing. Some accuse Microsoft of purposely making it overly complex and difficult, but in their defense they are licensing Lync the same as their other enterprise offerings.
The major difference in approach relates to dedicated versus shared infrastructure. For example, a typical UC VoIP quote covers licensing, dedicated servers, required hardware, and related applications such as unified messaging or presence. It is common for quotes not to include LAN switches, power considerations, or HVAC, as those items are typically already in place. With Lync, the assumptions of what's in place are broader, particularly around Microsoft products and components (Active Directory, Exchange, SharePoint, Office) and Microsoft doesn't provide the hardware--thus Lync quotes tend to be Lync-specific licensing only. Even worse, the software, or major components of it, may already be in place through a volume licensing program. This can reduce the quotes to only design, implementation, and add-on components.
Microsoft publishes two critical guides to understanding Lync licensing: Microsoft Lync Server 2010 Licensing Guide and Microsoft Volume Licensing Reference Guide. These documents address the basic structure of the programs, but assume a familiarity with Microsoft licensing. These documents address most, but not all questions.
Lync licensing is conceptually easy, but there is no shortage of rabbit holes. Starting with the server, there are three types of Lync server 2010 licenses:
1. Server
2. Client Access Licenses (CALs)
3. External Connectors
The next level down: there are two kinds of servers (Standard and Enterprise), three kinds of CALs (Standard, Enterprise, and Plus), and various connectors that are charged either one time only, or monthly. The number of servers and the roles associated with each server vary by implementation requirements and can be complex. In addition to Lync Server, there is also a Lync client for the desktop. IP phones can be licensed to users or as devices. Desktops are generally part of a Windows infrastructure with Active Directory. Most implementations will also (optionally) integrate with Exchange and SharePoint, but neither integrations are required--thus they are not considered part of "Lync licensing."
As Lync is targeted to larger organizations, the first step in evaluating licensing is for you to research whether your organization already has a Microsoft volume licensing arrangement in place. There are numerous such programs and they vary tremendously. The programs may or may not include software assurance and support, may or may not include actual licenses (perpetual) as opposed to a rental (subscription). Terms are typically two or three years. Additionally, there are different programs for non-profits, government, education, and multi-national organizations.
Once the volume licensing is sorted out, then comes the engineering. The server type (Standard and Enterprise) has nothing to do with the Standard and Enterprise CAL types. The key difference between Standard and Enterprise servers originally pertained to high availability, but now with HA for the Standard server option, the primary difference involves capacity. Client Access Licenses and licenses for the clients themselves are two different things--totally separate from each other--and should not be confused with one another.
The different CAL types--enterprise and standard--enable different features. Not entire feature areas such as video or collaboration, but levels of features within those areas. The Standard CAL is a base CAL, and both Enterprise and Plus CALs are optional and additive on top of the Standard. It is the Plus CAL that delivers enterprise voice capabilities. Many OCS users got temporary access to Plus CALs via a grandfathering policy.
Microsoft's model of licensing is not new, but it represents a radically different approach for telecommunications. Quotes from competing vendors typically start with voice, and use add-on licenses to enable entirely new feature areas such as collaboration or presence. Lync starts with collaboration and presence, and then offers voice as the add-on. Microsoft's unique approach offers both benefits and disadvantages.
NEXT PAGE: Advantages and disadvantages
For end users, the big benefit of Microsoft's approach comes in the form of bundling. Microsoft bundles Lync with some of its enterprise offers. Lync server CALs are included in Microsoft’s popular CAL suites. These suites provide CALs for multiple servers such as Windows Server, Exchange, and SharePoint. The Lync Client is bundled with Office Professional 2010 Plus. The Plus (voice) CALs are not typically bundled. Organizations that already have these suites under a volume program likely already own a significant portion of (non voice) Lync licensing. It also gives Microsoft a big advantage in pilots, as organizations can set them up without much or any vendor involvement.
Another key benefit is that Lync is available under subscription models. This path allows customers to rent access to the software during the term of the contract. Subscription models have a lower monthly cost and are considered opex instead of capital expenditures. When a subscription term ends, however, so does the right to use the software.
Microsoft doesn't have an opinion on the hardware used to run Lync, at least not publicly. The volume licensing programs focus on users, rather than servers. When developing quotes, on competing vendors’ systems the dealer tends to do the design for free as part of the bid--whereas with Lync it is more likely a consultant who's paid specifically to sort through the implementation variables. This involves the overall design and the required hardware including servers, gateways, headsets, and IP phones--all likely different brands obtained through multiple sources.
The big disadvantage lies in understanding and comparing total costs. CFOs have this nasty habit of requesting quotes that can be easily compared, and this can be a challenge with Lync and other brands. It has lots of third-party components, any of which can make or break an implementation. It is important to gather all the cost components including the hardware listed above, impact to other servers and systems, specialized connector licenses, dedicated device licensing, support, maintenance, etc. Although Microsoft works to certify interoperability, the task of sourcing, implementing, and supporting the various components often falls to the customer.
Lync implementations generally assume a Microsoft dominant infrastructure. Lync does not include messaging, but instead integrates with Exchange. Assuming the customer has Exchange, unified messaging becomes included. Conversely, UM is nearly always sold as an option with competing vendors and it generally integrates with Exchange as well as other messaging platforms.
Bottom Line:
UC is moving away from the speeds and feeds to the user experience, thus the pilot is becoming critical. Pilots are new in telecom--in the good ol’ days, customers bought systems sight unseen. Thanks to software based systems and shared cable plant, now the notion of a pilot is viable and practical. This puts hardware-based vendors at a disadvantage and gives a slight benefit to vendors that virtualize their offerings. The emerging enterprise UC battle will be the fight for the pilot.
In that sense, Microsoft is well positioned despite the complexity associated with Lync licensing. This is not to suggest implementing Lync is trivial or inexpensive. It is in fact deceptively complex despite its integration hooks with other Micorosoft products. Microsoft is leveraging its huge installed volume licensing base to effectively position Lync as an incumbent technology. This approach seems particularly effective when comparing it to upgrading multiple PBX brands and systems to a new UC solution.
Dave Michels is contributing editor and blogs about telecom at TalkingPointz.com.
