A Cooperative Project of VoiceCon and UC Strategies

This issue of Unified Communications eWeekly is sponsored by UCStrategies:

UC Strategies is an industry resource and web portal to help enterprises, vendors, and system integrators develop their UC strategies. A source of objective information and thought leadership on Unified Communications, we provide analysis, executive interviews, podcasts, white papers, and other information on the UC industry. Visit the UCStrategies.com website for more detail.

Earlier this week I posted an article on the UCStrategies.com website—“If Microsoft Acquires a PBX Vendor.” That article suggests that as Microsoft pushes to dominate the unified communications market, it may consider acquiring a PBX vendor. What follows below is intended to build off that article and provide advice to PBX/IP PBX vendors.

Microsoft has developed a compelling and well thought-out family of products for the unified communications market. It provides a complete unified communications solution (excluding the underlying IP network) for many applications (see Marty Parker’s article “Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007—The Right Tool for the Right Jobs!”) including a single directory, a limited number of management interfaces, integration with other Microsoft products (Office, Outlook, Vista, etc.), presence and instant messaging, Exchange, a new family of partner-provided endpoint devices and gateways, and even a voice quality assessment tool.

Evidence that Microsoft is already making inroads is found in the growing number of demands from enterprise customers that PBX vendors interoperate with Office Communications Server (OCS). While this encourages Microsoft, it inevitably puts the PBX vendors in an awkward position: By supporting OCS in the short-term, they are also easing the transition to those customers’ next PBX, which will be provided by Microsoft.

In response to Microsoft’s market moves and in an effort to remain relevant, several PBX vendors (e.g., Siemens, Cisco, Avaya, Mitel and NEC) have already started to move aggressively into vertical markets and to focus on system integration opportunities. However, if Microsoft were to acquire a PBX vendor, these windows of opportunity would close.

So, what should a PBX vendor do? They should do what many have already been doing but in a more aggressive way—partner with IBM.

From a simple survival standpoint, IBM is a better partner. While Microsoft has made it clear it intends to replace the PBX in the future, IBM has made no such public announcement—at least thus far. In addition, IBM is attacking one of Microsoft’s strongholds with Lotus Symphony, its productivity suite.

In terms of a complete solution, Microsoft can beat IBM. However, when comparing features on IBM’s Lotus Sametime features vs. OCS, I give Sametime the advantage. And that’s not surprising—IBM has been in this market space longer than Microsoft, and has had time to develop a full-featured offering.

But even a combination of a PBX vendor and IBM would have to add more features and functionality to compete head-to-head with Microsoft. One of the reasons the Microsoft offering is so compelling is that the various components are tightly integrated. PBX vendors need to move towards a single directory, a single management interface or, at least, a more limited number, a more consistent user interface and voice quality assessment tool (such as the Psytechnics tool that Microsoft uses).

So my advice to PBX vendors is to get on the phone with IBM, and pronto. For my take on what customers should be doing, please visit the new CMP website NoJitter.com this Friday, December 14. NoJitter.com is run by my friends at BCR.

In the meantime, what do you think about the stark choices facing the PBX vendors? Drop me a note at jburton@ucstrategies.com or post your comments here in the VoiceCon Unified Communications eWeekly forum.

Jim Burton
CT-Link and UCStrategies.com

Posted in Market Trends, Equipment, Jim Burton, Unified Communications |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.