...at least as long as Microsoft has the lead.
Does OCS impliment WGA in any manner? How many administrators want that ticking time bomb running their voice infastructure. At least I hope it's polite: "Your call cannot be completed at this time because your copy of Office Communications Server is not properly activated. Goodbye."
Then there's licensing: What a mess that is already. How many people will be anxious to get their PBX tied up in that tangle as well?
My fantansy: Somebody is going to develop some inexpensive PC-compatible open-standard hardware and someone else is going to come up with some tight Linux code to run it. Reliable, and no licensing nonsense. Want more nodes, just buy some more hardware.
That's my fantasy, anyway.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I think y'all are right. It will be hard for the PBX to go away totally. I sure hope it stays because Microsoft is taking too much.
I'm a network engineer and I wonder what kind of effect this new product will have on people like me.
I'm a network engineer and I wonder what kind of effect this new product will have on people like me.
I'm almost 50 years old this month and over the past half century I've noticed a few things.
When too many people are overly dependent upon one source for anything, therein lies a weakness that can come back to bite them at the worst time.
Too much of a good thing isn't necessarily a good thing - in love, business, religion, politics and IT services.
I use Exchange Server and I use a hosted PBX with www.packet8.net for scalability and cost reduction.
If my Internet goes down, I DO have a communications problem. If Packet8 has a problem, then I have a problem - but fortunately that has not been an issue with Packet8 or my internet connection over the past 3 years.
As much as I like Microsoft's product ideas and integration, I have been looking at some of the professionally developed (and tested as reliable) open source and/or non-mirosoft options.
I have a provider of industry specific software that has bundled services. I love and have come to depend upon thier product and they have come to charge higher and higher subscription fees (knowing I can't go anywhere else) to the point that I now resent them instead of praise and refer them to my peers in my industry.
I prefer to keep my eggs in a couple of baskets so there is some healthy competition in the maket place.
My services are priced competetively and my service is good because I know the guy down the street is after my business.
When too many people are overly dependent upon one source for anything, therein lies a weakness that can come back to bite them at the worst time.
Too much of a good thing isn't necessarily a good thing - in love, business, religion, politics and IT services.
I use Exchange Server and I use a hosted PBX with www.packet8.net for scalability and cost reduction.
If my Internet goes down, I DO have a communications problem. If Packet8 has a problem, then I have a problem - but fortunately that has not been an issue with Packet8 or my internet connection over the past 3 years.
As much as I like Microsoft's product ideas and integration, I have been looking at some of the professionally developed (and tested as reliable) open source and/or non-mirosoft options.
I have a provider of industry specific software that has bundled services. I love and have come to depend upon thier product and they have come to charge higher and higher subscription fees (knowing I can't go anywhere else) to the point that I now resent them instead of praise and refer them to my peers in my industry.
I prefer to keep my eggs in a couple of baskets so there is some healthy competition in the maket place.
My services are priced competetively and my service is good because I know the guy down the street is after my business.
Whether Microsoft's OCS is a big success or not makes little difference. The standalone PBX is living on borrowed time. Like the rest of telecommunications, it is destined to be subsumed into the computer industry. The PBX was a dedicated voice-routing machine, but the future belongs to treating voice and video just like any other data on an IP network. There is little reason to continue to support a separate, dedicated machine for voice, except to retain favorite applications that haven't been ported, yet, to a general-purpose computing platform. Cost factors alone argue for moving voice to the existing network infrastructure. Then there is the vast improvement in performance, such as the ability to add video easily, and ability to customize systems for each customer. Microsoft has the advantage of being able to fold its OCS into a platform that already is deployed widely, namely the company's small-office server. That practically ensures its adoption.
I have no idea whether Microsoft has managed to duplicate familiar features (especially buttons) of the popular standalone PBXs, IP or not. That will be a key factor in the speed of its adoption because people get very attached to various single-button features. However, I was impressed with the interface of its soft phone, introduced about three years ago. It seemed to include the right features for business users plus it had a relatively intuitive dashboard. Business phone, especially small-business phone, is a lot about familiarity, so it depends on whether or not they have captured that.
I have no idea whether Microsoft has managed to duplicate familiar features (especially buttons) of the popular standalone PBXs, IP or not. That will be a key factor in the speed of its adoption because people get very attached to various single-button features. However, I was impressed with the interface of its soft phone, introduced about three years ago. It seemed to include the right features for business users plus it had a relatively intuitive dashboard. Business phone, especially small-business phone, is a lot about familiarity, so it depends on whether or not they have captured that.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
