"Unified communications" is one of the hottest buzzwords I’ve seen in a while. Everyone is jumping onto the unified communications (UC) bandwagon these days: Cisco, Microsoft, and several small players have all got the UC religion. And, I believe, Apple and Google are sneaking in the back door. It’s interesting because I can literally see the buzz growing around this in real-time. Google’s starting to send a substantial amount of traffic to my blog from UC-related queries, and I now belong to a LinkedIn group and a Google Group focused solely on UC.
However, the definition of UC still seems fuzzy. Depending on who’s using it, it can mean:
- Using the same network for voice, video, and data, or…
- Using the same device for all forms of communication, or…
- Mixing media types (audio + video + data combo) in the same stream of communication
And there are probably other definitions as well. In fact, I think unified communications is in danger of becoming a fuzzy buzzword just like Web 2.0 is–its definition can be changed to suit your immediate purpose. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, fuzzy buzzwords seem to have a way of being what people want them to be, so they can be good from a marketing perspective. Position yourself as a leader in UC and you’re a leader in just about anything you can label as UC. But it also makes it tricky to craft a coherent strategy, because a strategy implies definition and measurable goals and numbers to meet and so forth. Anyone care to identify a measurable goal around a Web 2.0 strategy? (Thought not.)
In my opinion, Microsoft was the first with a truly unified communication product with Exchange, which unifies your calendar, contact list, and inbox. Lotus has similar functionality, although the database features of their product get in the way of a clear marketing direction. GroupWise is also in this space to some degree. But all are primarily fat client and none have any concept of a mobile platform. There’s also not much in the way of voice or video there, although Microsoft is starting to address that.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis on converging communication channels, but not enough on the user experience. I would argue that if there isn’t a benefit to the end-user all you’re doing is commoditizing the pipes that carry the information. That’s nice because it brings significant cost savings, but then you’re competing on the cost of bits and bytes.
The real interesting and somewhat neglected aspect of unified communications is at the end user. While communication is starting to flow over a single channel, the user experience is still very fragmented. I counted 7 distinct products on Microsoft’s UC Roadmap. If you have to stick it together with duct tape is it still Unified?
I’m probably in the minority here, but I see unified identity as the linchpin to unified communications, and I see Apple taking the early lead here. Microsoft, while they have yet to unify 
their customer experience, gets this identity bit in the enterprise space–it’s the basis of Active Directory. But Apple, they get it in the consumer space. Mobile Me is a big deal, it’s Apple’s foray into the UC space starting from the identity up. (Don’t forget that Apple has existing patents on the iPhone to enable video conferencing!) Notice how they bill Mobile Me as "Exchange for the rest of us". I’ve been saying for years that the first company to launch an
Exchange clone for the common man will make money hand over fist. When
my friends and family first saw my Blackberry and all the cool things it
could do they thought it was REALLY nifty. They can have it now with Mobile Me. (RIMM is effectively dead, by the way… unless they pull a BIG old rabbit out of their hat.) Bringing this capability to
Joe Public is going to create some interesting changes in the market as
consumers get used to a unified communications experience and start to
demand change when they see an experience that’s inherently fragmented. The line between enterprise and consumer is going to blur whether enterprise companies want it to or not.
Apple and Microsoft both have their weaknesses in this space, and they’re related to being closed and locking users in. Mobile Me is not open–like everything else from Apple it’s closed and controlled. Fine. It’s better than what we had before outside of the enterprise (nothing). Exchange is also tightly controlled, but it’s from a licensing perspective. The most they’ve done to open up Exchange in all of the years it’s been available is to host Exchange on the Web recently. Microsoft is clinging tightly to the family jewels, and while they do that they’re leaving the window open for new and hungry competitors to boot them from the top of the mountain. Now, if they were to open a consumer-facing Exchange-based competitor to Mobile Me, THAT would be a big deal. However, they’ll never do it because Exchange is such a cash cow for them. (If I were Ray Ozzie I’d bake Exchange into the next version of Windows–it might already be too late, but it’s worth a shot.)
Google, I think, is a wild card here. They certainly have the beginnings of a UC product line. With a Google account I can now get email, chat, instant messaging, and voice chat. And I use their GrandCentral product to front-end all of my voice communications because I love the way it ties in with my contact list and acts as a virtual personal assistant. The key will be what they end up doing with their mobile Android operating system. If they manage to get traction with that it could be an interesting way to both unify the communications experience and, eventually, penetrate the enterprise.
There seems to be a unified communications "stack" emerging here, and I don’t think any player addresses the whole thing yet. You have the device, which Apple owns at a consumer level (barring an Android revolution) and is completely fragmented at the enterprise level (Microsoft is pushing the desktop–ick–and everyone else is pushing devices). Then there’s the identity layer, which Microsoft owns in the enterprise but Google and Apple are starting to break into from the consumer side. And then there’s the network, which everyone owns. (It is interesting that Google recently tried to purchase wireless spectrum, to me this implies that they’re trying to own the entire stack.)
The real question, I think, is whose vision is the most ambitious and most aligns with the future. I have big doubts about Microsoft, they’re stuck trying to defend the desktop which is a losing proposition in the long run. I’m just speculating about what Google is doing. But I was really impressed when I saw Steve Jobs unveil Mobile Me a few months ago, it really shows Steve Job’s vision. My reaction was "he really gets it". It’ll be interesting to see how each of these visions pan out. Gentlemen, place your bets!
P.S. I’m not going to comment on Cisco’s strategy because I’m not sure what I legally can and can’t say–so I just stay away from it.
