Reducing the development costs of proprietary solutions that John Malone discusses means a couple of reality lessons. Factory guys need to get their companies to issue calculators and "how to guides" on calculating amortization of equipment.First, learning how to "compete" again doesn't mean that you can just educate yourselves about the other guy's box. You must be able to do what the next guy does and you need to provide more in the way of value. You're probably thinking "oh no, here's comes the 500+ feature speech again." In part, you better have the features because all those voice features that the IT guys knocked around as being unnecessary are in fact necessary. It's simple--all available telephony features are rarely used by one vertical, but different features are required by different verticals and for different reasons and at different times. One size doesn't fit all but the features must play together in such a way as to deliver the ultimate solution that the customer needs in that particular vertical. Traditional manufacturers can narrow the customer decision-making by providing flexibility and even customization of standard telephony features. This means the dial plan is going to be highly customizable and so will the features. Knocking out concrete set in stone methodology means taking that old proprietary code and giving it an extreme makeover to deliver what open systems are enabling customers to do in the first place. In other words--development costs for reusing the same old molds is a dead argument. It is about giving up control, lowering costs and recognizing that the danger signal has sounded with increasing adoption rates of open source solutions.
Second, you guys sell too much optional stuff. You get on the green kick when you smell money but you ignore sustainability and convergence. Music-on-hold, message-on-hold, ACD, reporting and reports packages, queuing and queue announcements all need to be rolled into standard IP-PBX offerings and don't forget "true tenant services."
Thirdly, prices for phones need to drop because of relevance. Look at the per-user cost and the numbers don't mesh. Open systems will contribute to erosion of market prices to a degree, but more price scrutiny will occur from lack of competitive product offering. You can't keep commanding higher prices for delivering less while the market sends the signal (i.e., we're looking elsewhere for solutions)--and it has. You need to substantiate what you do well, but at least recognize what you don't do as well that causes companies to look for higher valued solutions with lower costs. High end phones are already approaching $1,000--are you guys trying to replace desktop PCs?
However much bundling there is in one solution, another solution may improve upon that by offering free licenses. Yet customers need affordable, reliable and predictable solutions that meet business needs. Solutions, not boxes, are the answer and yours must fit snugly into the organization with enough reasons to not look at alternatives, otherwise you're inducted into the hall of inclusion that is a cloudy, murky place and it's one that suffers from lack of differentiation and low perceived value.
