How has Microsoft not dominated the voice world?

When you factor that Microsoft is a $100bn a year giant. A desktop market share of 90%. They include internal UC proposition for free to customers and have a foot in consumer UC since the acquisition of consumer Skype which is now the verb for video point to point calling. Through MCSA's and MCSE's nearly every IT professional has been brought up and trained in the Microsoft ecosystem. Yet looking at external voice to speak to people outside of an enterprise the adoption is not prolific.

It is not as if they are new to the strategy either Live Communication Server 2003 took the IM from turn of the century exchange servers and started a focused portfolio around all communications outside of email. With the direction of travel from Skype for business to Teams it seems an apt time to reflect on strategies. So how come after 15 years has the largest software player in the business world over that period not completely dominated? 

I personally look at the Windows phone saga and would argue it is not a forgone conclusion they ever will. Below is a series of questions I pose to businesses evaluating voice projects and have a preconception that Microsoft hold the answer.

Feature Gap

When I first saw LCS I was selling Mitel products and the Mitel Sales engineer was resigned that while it was lacking features it was only a few years away from market domination. I then worked with Nortel who had deployed 150 of their voice experts into Microsoft to help them bridge the feature gap.  12 years later industry experts still say in a few years Microsoft will have the voice part of UC market completely sewn up. The gap lays in key features still missing outside of people that sit in an office behind a PC 9-5. Skype often works well for evaluating IT departments but can fall short in the wider enterprise.

Does Microsoft cover the use case for everyone in your enterprise?

Coverage

Providing dial tone in multiple locations is extremely complicated the local telco regulations is a minefield that is a moving target. As a result, today MS only support calling plans in 10 countries a fraction of the coverage the leading UCaaS pure play organisations can support. On premise or hybrid is still and option but be cautious of the long-term road map supporting on premise PBX service.

Do you only have employees in the countries that Microsoft own cloud can support?

Eco system 

Microsoft choice of not being truly open means that certified vendors programme has been essential to enable Skype to be a workable PBX replacement. At the very least before a cloud offer from Microsoft you needed a SBC and more than likely you need some end points in handsets or video endpoints. More advanced telephony applications like a contact centre or operators console are common place in some degree in an enterprise. The number of these third-party vendors, relative size to the mighty Microsoft and ability to align compatibility with the MS roadmap is when caution needs to be applied. Ask a company that used an exchange server for voicemail and got burnt when the supported SBC’s changed with 12 months’ notice.  

How will your contact centre application adapt to the change of direction from Skype to Teams in the coming years?

How long do you expect a solution (all components) to continue to work and be support from time of purchase ?

Is your Eco system completely MS centric? Do you use Gsuite? or a CRM system that is not Dynamics or mainstream?  

User experience 

As mentioned before the classic Skype interface on a PC works well in an office environment on a windows desktop. It is simple which is great but then that does also mean it lacks more advanced user call control and use cases. Historically the user experience moving onto a Mac, mobile or tablet has lack true feature transparency. Count the clicks to make changes particularly on the admin side provisioning or amending users. As an external participant to large Skype conferences I have had some truly poor experiences in the past.

Have you compared using Teams to other advanced collaboration applications or using calling on mobiles?

It is not free 

The common misconception is that if you already have Skype/Teams in your enterprise licences agreement you have covered most of the cost already. The jump from CAL3 to 5 or adding PBX as a separate add on then buying PSTN access is more expensive than a UCaaS platform in my experience.

What is the True cost of Microsoft voice versus the market?

Identity crisis 

While the user training jump from LCS-OCS-Lync-Skype was minimal after all voice and IM user experience felt cosmetic. The leap to Teams does feel significantly more dramatic. Next generation collaboration applications are the biggest leap forward in the UC world Slack has forced MS to admit that Skype is becoming a legacy interface chit-chat IM is not comparable. Therefore, it is still confusing that a year on from Microsoft public Roadmap and direction of travel to Teams from Skype has not been communicated. The feet on the street (partners and MS own sales force) to the customers looking to adopt UCaaS and move from on premise PBX’s. Which ultimately raises two questions.

Is Teams ready to be the voice platform for your enterprise?

If you are deploying a Skype voice strategy now how long will it be before you need to run another project to move to Teams?

Conclusion

What alternative do you have if Microsoft are not right for you yet?

The key benefits my customers see in RingCentral UCaaS is they sign up to a term that matches their expectation of when Microsoft voice strategy is fit for their purpose. We cover the locations they are working in now. Integrate to MS and other key business applications. Tend to be a more cost-effective option today.  Most importantly we offer a more complete cloud UC vision today which is a view shared by the leading 3rd party analysts.