Lippis Report 152: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Before It Started

nicklippis.jpgIn the Lippis Report Research Note 150, we discussed the new industry group called Unified Communications Interoperability Forum or UNIF and compared it to other industry consortium charted to deliver interoperable solutions. While interoperability is sorely needed in the UC industry, it looks like Microsoft killed its changes of broad industry success before it started. What I hear from both UCIF members and non-members is that UCIF is controlled by Microsoft, and thus, lacks a large cross section of industry players as well as major UC providers. With its current structure, UCIF will make limited headway on its charter. In this Lippis Report Research Note, we review UCIF and its’ opportunities.

Cisco Launches FabricPath Switching System For Scalable Data Center Ethernet Fabrics

Listen to the Podcast

There is no doubt that the unified communications and collaboration industry needs interoperable solutions. Video traffic, in particular, is growing exponentially, which will not abate anytime soon. Driving growth is the new mobile video market with devices being equipped with real time video applications from companies such as Apple with its’ iPhone 4.0 FaceTime feature and Cisco’s Cius tablet. There is a real-time mobile video chat for Android too via the Movicha client application. In addition, every major UC supplier will launch a tablet based, end user device this year with tight links into its UC and video collaboration infrastructure. In short, the next generation office phone is a tablet. The combination of consumer and business mobile video device options will drive demand for interoperability, not only between mobile end points, but into corporate video conferencing systems too.

A Modern Approach To FAX Management Via Unified Communications

Listen to the Podcast

There needs to be a base line of interoperability standards for presence and call management also. Yes SIP or session initiation protocol does provide a base line, but many have built proprietary extensions minimizing interoperability options.

A Simpler Data Center Fabric Emerges For The Age of Massively Scalable Data Centers

Get the White Paper

Now is a great time for an industry wide consortium of suppliers, service providers, IT executives and analysts to contribute to a set of interoperability standards with associated certification testing. Before UCIF was established Microsoft drove the initiative with limited to no input or invitation from its competitors. This approach has alienated nearly every major UC supplier from participating in UCIF, and therefore, don’t expect to see Cisco, Avaya, ShoreTel, Mitel, NEC et al to contribute. From this point of view, Microsoft killed UCIF before it even started.

But UCIF can make a contribution especially in the area of real time video collaboration between mobile, desktop and video conferencing system end points. For example, Microsoft could open up its’ Real Time Video (RTV) and Real Time Audio (RTA) codec protocols so that mixed vendor video endpoints can communicate with Office Communicator endpoints natively. With LifeSize, Polycom, HP and Microsoft being the UCIF founding members, their contribution to video collaboration interoperability could have a large impact on the real time video conferencing market.

Moving to IP Saves Costs, Boosts Productivity

Get the White Paper

For example, I use a LifeSize Express 220 video conferencing system, and as a standalone device that connects to other video conferencing systems via IP, H.323 or SIP, it’s magnificent. It would be great to connect with clients that have video enabled their desktop and mobile endpoints too. The larger the universe of potential video endpoints that one can connect to, the greater the value a real time video system provides. This would be a great charter for UCIF, which is to contribute open standards and certification testing that enable mobile, desktop and corporate video conferencing systems to interoperable.

However, for UCIF to deliver on its charter, it would have to dissolve and restart with Cisco, Avaya, Mitel, ShoreTel, and a larger role for Siemens, plus service providers, analysts and IT executives all being stake holders. You cannot have a closed group defining open standards. It just does not work that way.

12 Debates over Lippis Report 152: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Before It Started

  1. The Network Gang said:

    #Networks Lippis Report 152: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Be.. http://bit.ly/9ByqJj

  2. Silje Ingvoldstad said:

    RT @nicklippis: Lippis Report 152: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Before It http://is.gd/dqYJE

  3. Denis Du Bois said:

    @P5Group RT @nicklippis: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Before It Started http://bit.ly/9ByqJj

  4. jeffreyrodman said:

    The assertion that “UCIF is controlled by Microsoft” is apparently flavored by some past history having nothing to do with UCIF, but actually has no factual basis. UCIF was founded by five companies, not one (HP, Juniper, Lifesize/Logitech, my own, Polycom, and Microsoft); each has only one vote on the Board of Directors, and there are currently over twenty active members, growing rapidly. The purpose of UCIF is to achieve precisely the goals described in this article – interoperability, establishment of connection among platforms and across networks. Given that the UCIF is fundamentally open and democratic, welcomes all UC vendors whether hardware, software, services, carrier or network, and already has a strong and broad membership, the best path forward for the industry is not to “dissolve” this existing, viable and vibrant collaboration, but to encourage non-members to transform their ongoing discussions (of which there are many) into active membership, and make their voices, and influences, felt. We welcome, and need, their participation.

  5. Marty Parker said:

    Thanks, for the perspective, Nick, but what we need in the Unified Communications industry is interoperatbility at more basic levels, starting with inter-system federation for presence, IM and peer-to-peer text and voice communcations.

    For example, if a company with Microsoft Office Communications Server to support their desktops and mobile devices has a partner or client using, say, Avaya one-X to support their desktops and mobile devices, they want to be able to communicate across organization boundaries effectively and economically.

    If some media translation has to happen at the edges, that’s each vendor’s accountability; and if some vendor’s translations are too costly, that vendor will be pressured to conform, or lower the price.

    As to video interoperation, Jeffrey Rodman (CTO of Polycom) pretty well says it in his post. But with the bandwidth loads of video, most businesses will prefer to solve problems at the IM, text (e-mail) and voice bandwidth levels if they can.

    In any case, those who choose not to join every possible interoperability forum are missing out on opportunities to serve a broader market than just their existing customer base.

  6. Nick Lippis said:

    Lippis Report 152: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Before It Started http://bit.ly/9fnyiB

  7. Sagemcom said:

    RT @Nicklippis: Lippis Report 152: How Microsoft Killed The Unified Communications Interoperability Forum Before It Started http://bit.ly/9fnyiB

  8. Nick Lippis said:

    Jeffery and Marty,

    Thank you for your comments and thoughts. We are in agreement on the need for interoperability in the UC market. In fact, I believe that the UC address market will expand when the type of UC interoperability that Marty discusses in his post is realized. Were we differ is on how the industry delivers it. Without Cisco, Avaya, ShoreTel, Mitel, NEC et in the UCIF it will have marginal impact. The trade show Interop provided a great gathering place and demonstration of TCP/IP interoperability. The UC industry needs such an interoperability platform.

    Nick

  9. Lai Debray said:

    The article is in reality the excellent on this worthy topic. I slot in collectively together with your conclusions and looking forward to your coming updates. Just saying many thanks is not going to simply be enough, for that implausible clarity inside your writing. I’ve grabbed your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Gratifying job and quite a bit success in your organization dealings!

  10. Aimee Ahmad said:

    Great post.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  11. Tristan Mundy said:

    This is one awesome blog.Really getting excited about read more. Really Great.

  12. Chuck Delagol said:

    Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, this is wonderful blog. A great read. I’ll definitely be back.|