Gateway Services Connecting Standards-Based Video Endpoints to Teams Meetings
Microsoft has chosen three partners, BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom, to provide interoperability between legacy video teleconfencing (VTC) endpoints and Teams. These solutions are pretty similar, but there are some differences. They all run as services in the Microsoft Azure cloud and use Microsoft APIs to interface with Team's next-generation communication service. They essentially provide signaling and media gateways between the VTC units and Teams.
Although Microsoft is supporting VTC interoperability, it tends to sort of disparage this kind of connectivity. That's because it breaks the Teams user experience given that the VTC units will have a different user experience from the Teams user. For the legacy video endpoint user, the experience will be similar to how VTC units connect today with Skype for Business endpoints in that the VTC endpoints can see multiple video streams, share content, and see shared content.
For example, BlueJeans offers a "BlueJeans Gateway for Teams" that runs as a service in the Azure cloud. You can purchase this gateway separately in that it doesn't require any additional BlueJeans services attached. The solution is in beta with a number of Microsoft Technology Adoption Program (TAP) partners testing it, and BlueJeans expects that it will be generally available by the end of the summer. The BlueJeans Gateway for Teams will be available for purchase from the Microsoft store, from BlueJeans directly, or from a Microsoft channel partner, and it will likely be offered in both named user and shared port count models. You will be able to configure the service through the Office 365 administrator control panel.
To connect to a Teams meeting, room video systems can either dial the gateway directly using the connection information in the meeting invitation, or BlueJeans can feed the connection information directly to the endpoint using its management software. In this way, if the endpoint supports "one button joining," then a single touch can launch the endpoint, or the touchscreen controller in the room can be used to launch it.
Pexip's solution enables an organization to run a dedicated instance of the Pexip gateway for Teams in the Azure cloud. Pexip will operate the instance for you as part of the service offering, but you'll also receive a bill for the processing that instance requires within the Azure cloud.
Polycom's RealConnect runs as a multitenant solution in the Azure cloud. Polycom's pricing for this interoperability includes any Azure processing. RealConnect is currently in beta with a number of Microsoft TAP participants using it.
Cisco, Lifesize & Zoom
As presently constituted, Cisco, Lifesize, Zoom and any other third-party video solutions won't interoperate with Teams at all (a "sort of" workaround is explained below), unless you use one of the three Teams video gateway partner solutions described above.
StarLeaf Teams Interoperability
StarLeaf has an interoperability solution with Teams; however, it isn't supported by Microsoft and Microsoft warns that it could likely be made interoperable by future Teams updates.
I'm thinking hard about why Microsoft opposes the StarLeaf implementation. In my mind, this solution is actually pretty clever. Here's how it works: StarLeaf deploys a full version of Teams in a Windows virtual machine that it loads on top of a Linux kernel that is running on a StarLeaf video endpoint.
StarLeaf's Maestro management software also runs in the Linux kernel. Maestro has access to Microsoft Exchange and can see a room's calendar or an individual's calendar. When a Teams meeting is scheduled for that endpoint (Skype for Business works too, by the way) the Maestro software uses Teams APIs to connect Teams to the meeting automatically. Simultaneously, it directs the Teams video, via the APIs, to appear on the StarLeaf display. The Teams user interface is never exposed or seen by the StarLeaf user.
Microsoft's official line on this solution is that StarLeaf is distributing the Teams client with its devices without agreed authorization. Microsoft requires authorization from any/all companies to ensure that the software being distributed is secure, up to date, and legally licensed. By distributing Microsoft software without authorization, Microsoft says that StarLeaf is misleading its customers and that customers purchasing this solution will find themselves in an unsupported state from a Microsoft perspective.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that since the StarLeaf solution uses the actual Teams client with a license purchased by the user and this Teams client is updated using Microsoft's standard update methodology, technically this interoperability solution should work fine.
Microsoft states that StarLeaf is using methods in its software to control the Teams application in ways Microsoft didn't design and won't support. I suppose if Microsoft changes the underlying Teams functionality and interface, StarLeaf's interoperability solution could break, but then maybe other applications "approved" by Microsoft would also break.
