May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

April 04, 2008

DimDim: Conceptually Perfect, But Reality Is...

The challenge for DimDim is that people are moving away from stovepipe decisions for on-premises web conference tools in large organizations. Within the large enterprise and many medium size companies, decision criteria are slowly shifting towards a UC framework. That dynamic, coupled with that fact that many currently installed on-premises web conferencing systems are driven by an application need (e.g., virtual classrooom), means that DimDim needs to think ahead of the curve and not target current scenarios. What I would suggest would be to integrate DimDim with open source VoIP (i.e., Asterisk), embedding an IM/presence gateway to federate with systems (e.g., IBM, Microsoft, public networks) and integrate with a select area of vertical applications to help champions shape their business case. Strategists might be interested in a more cohesive open source platform framework that plays to a UC context than simply replacing one functional tool (web conferencing) with another. 

What about our Webex/GoToMeeting bills? No, way we need that for sales. What if we switch to DimDim, a freemium, open source-based alternative? And right there we have a nice, simple, "no duh" value proposition and one that will be popular in a recession. But, does the software work?

I got a demo last week, and the answer is sort of, mostly. What was really sweet was that there was no download required; one click from the email link and I was connected to the presenter's desktop, could see his face on a video screen, and we could voice and text chat. The "sort of" is for the few minor glitches we experienced (which Steve, the CMO, fixed on the spot) and I think it crashed Safari on me, but then lots of things seem to crash Safari these days. So DimDim is perhaps not quite ready for prime time, but it seemed very close.

DimDim’s No Duh, Recession-Proof Proposition - ReadWriteWeb

February 28, 2008

Getting Started With Web Conferencing

For those that might be new to web conferencing, there are few key items to consider before leaping to specific vendor solutions or before you go too far down the road of requirements gathering. Understanding some of these concepts below will enable you to better frame your effort and ask more specific questions re: business needs.

  • Market structure
  • Usage models
  • Pricing models
  • Convergence trends

Understand the market structure

It's important to understand some of the industry dynamics influencing how web conferencing technology is evolving. There are a variety of ways to segment players in this market. Some might even argue that web conferencing is not a distinct market structure. And I would not strongly disagree with that perspective - it's a debate on timing. As communication and collaboration services become components within a larger platform, it's difficult to see how web conferencing as something that has a distinct market boundary. However, if you are relatively new to this space and do not have a clear knowledge of its history, then some type of market / vendor segmentation can be helpful. As background, my coverage of web conferencing began in 1996. Below is one way to look at how vendors are positioned:

Conferencing Service Providers: CSP's are vendors whose business framework is premised on a SaaS delivery model where web conferencing is the primary focus. It is likely that a CSP will offer additional capabilities in terms of audio, video, integration with instant messaging systems and mobile support. Vendors in this category include: Adobe, Cisco (WebEx) Citrix, Genesys Conferencing, IBM (WebDialogs), InterCall (Raindance), and Microsoft. It is important to note that a CSP might represent one business unit for a vendor that also delivers solutions in other market segments. For instance, Adobe, Cisco, IBM, and Microsoft all deliver on-premises solutions for web conferencing in addition to a business area that behaves as a CSP.

Communication Carriers: Telecommunication companies often repackage technology from one or more CSP vendors under their own brand. The repackaging often includes a customized front-end and a unified back-end administration and billing system that integrates with what the carrier is offering to its customers as part of an overall voice/data solution. AT&T for instance is an example of a vendor that resells services from both Cisco (WebEx) and Microsoft but also sells its own solution based on its acquisition of Interwise.

Enterprise Software Vendors: On-premises web conferencing is also offered by large-scale vendors that deliver collaboration platforms. Vendors such as Adobe, IBM (Sametime), Microsoft (Office Communications Server), Novell (Sitescape), and Oracle fall into this category.

Communication & Networking Vendors: Vendors that primarily focus on telephony, audio conferencing and video conferencing also typically offer web conferencing systems as well. Vendors such as Avaya, Cisco (Latitude), Nortel and Polycom are examples of players in this category.

Specialists: There are vendors in the market that focus on specific solutions that generally fall into the web conferencing domain but might emphasize a particular function, such as screen/desktop sharing or application sharing or remote control. A vendor like Glance Networks would fall into this category. There are also best of breed vendors that (although they try to play in the general market) seem to concentrate in certain verticals. I would place a vendors such as iLinc and Elluminate in this category (I find them often used in distance learning situations). Even a large vendor can have an offshoot effort that is specialized. At this point, Microsoft with its SharedView beta is somewhat specialized (disconnected in many ways from its Live Meeting and OCS efforts).

Open Source Projects: There are also vendors that are leveraging open source efforts to deliver web conferencing technology. DimDim is an example of an open source effort for web conferencing.

Understand usage models ("use case scenarios")

Another important consideration if you need to make some decisions regarding web conferencing technology is to know about the type of applications a vendor supports. Web conferencing vendors can supply additional capabilities beyond "online meetings". Many offer conferencing-enabled applications for marketing, sales, customer service training and so on. The outline below is one way to think about the types of basic and advanced capabilities that might be needed when looking at vendors:

Online Meeting: The basic use case for web conferencing is simply to display a presentation or other type of document (e.g., project charts, spread sheets) to a remote audience. Often, the number of participants is low (less than 20) and the user experience is informal. The meeting might be scheduled or conducted on an ad-hoc basis (where the meeting space is created right away). There are a variety of features that might be needed (I'll cover those in another post) but the basics include the ability to display files in various formats (presentation, document, spread sheet, graphics, PDF), transfer files to other participants, chat with other participants, share a whiteboard, a specific applications or a desktop, and be able to conduct some type of question/answer or poll participants. 

Marketing Events: There can also be the need to have a web conference event for a larger number of participants. There may be an additional need for different roles (a moderator vs. a speaker). There may be a need to support a larger number of participants (perhaps hundreds) with a record-playback capability. The application will likely need to support some type of event management feature (registration functions) and include the ability to mute or eject participants. The web conferencing could be part of a marketing campaign of some type so there may be additional integration with other systems and the need for post-event analytics and reporting. 

Virtual Classroom: If the web conferencing system is targeted for an instructional environment, then there may be a need for integration with learning management systems or some type of course scheduling/registration application. There may need to be additional features for a student/teacher interaction model (raising a hand). The need for record-playback will likely come up as well. Integration with survey tools might also be needed if there are any type of testing requirements.

Customer Service: If the web conferencing system is intended to support a customer service scenario, there may be a greater need for remote control capabilities that allow support resources to "take over" a remote machine or the ability to co-browse (where a service agent guides another user's browser to a particular page on a web site).

Sales Support: If the solution is intended to support a sales environment, then it might be a core requirement for a web conferencing system to support features such as application sharing, whiteboard, co-browsing and a shared desktop since sales people will perhaps need more capabilities to allow them to demonstrate products and services.

Understand pricing models

Pricing models for web conferencing are more art than science. In fact, it's probably the most confusing aspect of this market (making it difficult at times to compare vendors on an equal basis).

  • Subscribe "By The Minute"
  • Subscribe "By The Port" (a shared resource, not named)
  • Subscribe "By The Room" (a persistent space that anyone can use or attend)
  • User Licensing (e.g., named users, guests, moderator-pays-attendees-free)

Since the "buyer" of web conferencing can be someone from different parts of an organization (business as well as IT), vendors have come up with different ways to purchase solutions. If they decision-maker is someone from a a communications or network background, then "by the minute" pricing is often presented since that model makes sense to someone in charge of audio/voice systems. If the decision-maker comes from an application background, a vendor might want to present a model that mimics enterprise software. You might see port pricing where you are buying some number of seats that can be used by anyone. Or, you might see something more creative where there are named users, guest accounts or even situations where only moderators and presenters pay but attendees are "free". More advanced discussions might result in a web conferencing "room" being purchased. This might reflect some type of bundled offer and might be appropriate for marketing events, sales demo spaces or a virtual classroom of some type since there is a regular schedule of sessions with a revolving audience.

Understand convergence trends

The above three concepts do not cover every aspect of "getting started" - I avoided any lengthy discussion of business requirements gathering in this particular post - but they are the some of the re-occurring issues I've come across over the years where people become confused in some way. Another future post will look at collecting requirements for web conferencing systems.

One last important item to remember is the overall trend of convergence. Web conferencing is a component of where the market is heading in terms of unified communications. It's important to keep in mind that a web conferencing decision should be made in context of other technologies that are strongly related such as:

  • Instant messaging & presence
  • VoIP/IP telephony
  • Audio and video conferencing
  • Facilities (room systems)
  • Mobile
  • Compliance (e.g., record/playback, audit)
  • Security (e.g., SSL, AES) and identity (directory integration)
  • Federation with external systems (including perimeter design)
  • Application integration (e.g., e-mail and calendar systems)
  • Peripherals (e.g., cameras, USB devices for phones, speakers, etc.)

February 26, 2008

Economic Concerns Will Renew Interest In Web Conferencing

Every so often, economic downturns, health-related outbreaks or acts of terrorism cause organizations to prioritize alternatives for corporate travel. Given growing energy costs and recession concerns, decision-makers are likely to "dust off" prior programs aimed at streamlining travel budgets. While there may not be as much waste in current travel programs, I suspect that we will see an upswing in web conferencing over the next several months. The leaders in the web conferencing space remains relatively unchanged. Cisco/WebEx and Microsoft Office Live Meeting are the dominant options for most large enterprises. But there are many options available. The last time I counted, there are well over 50 vendors in this space that offer hosted or on-premises solutions. There are open source alternatives as well. The hosted vendors I come across most often (in addition to Cisco and Microsoft) are:

There are many others AT&T (acquired Interwise), Genesys Conferencing, InterCall (acquired Raindance), Yugma (which offers Skype integration) and so on. Some strategists may be encouraged to leverage business interest in travel-related cost reduction as justification to pursue standardization efforts (e.g., select a single vendor) or perhaps as part of a broader rationalization for an on-premises deployment (where Cisco, IBM, and Microsoft include web conferencing as a component in their respective unified communications solution). 

So pull out those old project plans ... time to update them.

Business Week: Companies curtailing travel budgets

So far, travel bookings are holding up. But corporate travel managers are taking a more active role in keeping on-the-road spending in check:

- Employees are increasingly being asked to provide an economic rationale for their trips.

- Rules that require employees to book the lowest fare, stay in pre-approved hotels or double-up in cars and rooms are being enforced more strictly.

- Executives are pushing alternatives to face-to-face meetings, including phone- and Web-conferencing.

...

Faced with rising fuel costs, airlines increased business- and first-class fares by 12.4 percent during the first half of February compared with last year, according to Sabre Travel Networks. Economy fares climbed 6.2 percent.

Airport rental-car rates have jumped at least 20 percent each week this month compared with a year ago, according to Abrams Consulting Group. And hotel room rates jumped 5.9 percent in 2007, according to Smith Travel Research.

Companies curtailing travel budgets

November 05, 2007

What WebEx Should Mean To Microsoft

When Cisco acquired WebEx it resulted in (1) direct competition with Microsoft's Office Live Meeting service and (2) opened a future new competitive battle with Microsoft's Office Live / Windows Live Spaces. While the competing web conferencing solutions are part of a broader confrontation between Microsoft and Cisco regarding unified communications, the more serious battle (in my opinion) will occur if/when Cisco can deliver a platform and ecosystem around WebEx Connect.

If Cisco can forge more partnerships like the one with Oracle (posted here), and create a WebEx Connect marketplace for additional content, collaboration and social software solutions (delivered by third parties that see Cisco as a more level playing field than Microsoft, or more reliable than Google), and add to platform Cisco's own unified communications services - then Cisco no longer will be viewed as just a networking or PBX vendor trying to dabble in adjacent markets. "IF" it can do these things (along with building out a developer story), then we could see a realignment of vendors we consider top players in the collaboration space. This evolution might take 3-5 years. But that's not all that long - it took Microsoft just about 5 years to become a credible force in the unified communications market. 

With Cisco touting its own approach to unified communications, is there a Betamax-VHS battle looming?

There's plenty of room for both Cisco and Microsoft to be very successful in this space. There will be some ways that our things can work together, because we've worked with Cisco on a lot of the network and security initiatives. But there's very direct competition here too. Cisco has offered an IP phone system for some time, and our Office Communications Server uses Internet telephony to let you track what's going on with your colleagues and makes it easy to set up a screen-to-screen-type call. Cisco acquired WebEx, and that competes directly with what we call Live Meeting, which is our screen-sharing piece that allows people to talk and work on a document at the same time. But I think we should have the advantage, because we can create the overall user experience.

And what does Mr. Gates think? - November 12, 2007

October 24, 2007

Office Live Meeting 2007: Only Large Enterprises Need Apply?

Interesting article below. I believe Microsoft is focusing more on the large enterprise with Office Live Meeting 2007 where the client can be distributed using the admin toolkit as part of normal software distribution and update processes (and maintained using the Intranet Portal). Microsoft is heavily playing the UC card by positioning Live Meeting, RoundTable and OCS as synergistic and part of a platform approach - the price to that effort of course is the uptake of Live Meeting in the consumer space and for external audiences (where large downloads as described below are intolerable for many meeting participants). Cisco/WebEx still reigns as the market leader overall - especially in the SMB space, with other vendors (e.g., Adobe, Citrix and Web Dialogs to some extent) also commonly cited during my client interactions). 

It turns out that while David Chao's article was correct about the size of the Microsoft Live Meeting client download, that is only part of the story. The Live Meeting installation information and product website recommends using the full client if possible, for complete functionality. That is indeed a 15MB download, with an installation disk space requirement of 125MB! The installation requires Microsoft Windows, as the EXE and DLL components are written only for a Windows operating system.

But there is an alternative. Live Meeting allows the use of "Meeting Web Access" (MWA), which lets you run the service from a web browser as a Java applet. The system requirements page lists supported platforms as Internet Explorer on Windows, Firefox on Windows (but only XP... not Vista!), Safari on Mac OS, and Firefox on Solaris. I called tech support and asked about Unix and Linux operating systems. The rep told me that those platforms may or may not work and they are not tested or supported. (By the way, Microsoft turned down my request for a briefing or interview, so all information here is via my own experiments, the official web pages, or tech support calls.)

The Webinar Blog: Day One With Live Meeting 2007 - Web Access Problems

October 03, 2007

Is The Future Bright For Dimdim?

The web conferencing market is an interesting space to monitor. I've covered this area since 1996. The market remains dominated by a hosted model with WebEx/Cisco and Microsoft as the top providers. Other recognized players in the hosted space include Adobe, Citrix, Genesys, Intercall (e.g., Raindance) and WebDialogs (recently acquired by IBM). Carriers often package and resell services from these vendors (note: AT&T just acquired Interwise). The on-premises market remains fragmented. There are e-learning/virtual classroom deployments (e.g., Centra, iLinc, Interwise are common) and some enterprise-wide deployments (IBM Sametime, Adobe Connect and vendors that are expanding beyond e-learning). There are at least 80 some-odd vendors in the space overall, including situational vendors that focus on specific applications - like Glance Networks, or those that extend IM/VoIP platforms like Skype (WebDialogs has been successful in that regard). There are many pricing options - some are pay-as-you-go, others are subscription-based and there are free services as well. Overall, the market is under tremendous downward pricing pessure indicating that services will get cheaper over time.

Large enterprises are not making a web conferencing decision - they are increasingly making a unified communications decision. I do not see much uptake at all actually concerning open source for web conferencing - unlike IM where I do see some deployment of Jiver and Jabber (Jabber is more open standard than open source though). So I don't see DimDim being all that successful for on-premises deployment within large enterprises. For the SMB market, hosted offerings will likely continue to dominate - there are just too many options and I doubt DimDim will get enough brand awareness and visible presence to have any significant market share anytime soon. Security and compliance demands may also come into play when organizations choose a provider.

There may be an opportunity for DimDim to be used within a package and resold (say by a carrier/telco) - perhaps there might be some interest within government sectors and emerging markets where established vendors in this space have not defined themselves. But overall, I would pass for now and revisit open source and DimDim in 18 months or so. 

Dimdim Challenges WebEx, Microsoft

Dimdim, a Burlington, MA.-based web meeting services startup, wants to take on Cisco Systems’ (CSCO) WebEx and Microsoft’s (MSFT) Placeware by emphasizing simplicity and ease of use. The company, which is backed by investors including Draper Richards, Index Ventures and Nexus Capital India, launches its service today at DEMOfall 2007. Co-founded by Computer Associates alumni DD Ganguly and Prakash Khot, Dimdim has so far raised $2.5 million.

The service allows you share your desktop and files, and to IM, talk, and broadcast using your webcam. Dimdim is using Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud service to operate its service, and says its software is open source.

The service utilizes Adobe’s (ADBE) Flash 9 plugin for all of the multimedia apps. I gave the Dimdim service a brief spin and was impressed by its stripped-down simplicity and the speed with which it loaded into the browser, especially when compared to WebEx’s long startup process.

But that doesn’t mean WebEx (acquired by Cisco Systems for $3.2 billion) has anything to worry about right now, for Dimdim is still a work in progress. Its interface needs tweaking; in fact, it needs to be livened up. After all, web meetings can be fun. too. Nor was I clear as to how secure my information was going to be or where, exactly, all the files that I uploaded went. But I’m sure they will resolve all these issues soon.

This is a competitive market, and it’s going to get even more competitive. Sooner or later, Google (GOOG) is going to enter with its own twist on web conferencing, as WWD’s Anne Zelenka has pointed out. If Dimdim hopes to truly establish itself, it will have to focus relentlessly on “user experience.”

Dimdim Challenges WebEx, Microsoft « GigaOM

DimDim launches FOSS challenge to WebEx

Open source startup DimDim has released an alpha version of their new browser based web conferencing software. Users download the open source free code and install it on their own servers. The current version supports IE on Windows only for presenters, which is really unfortunate, but attendees can be in conference via Firefox on Mac. No software download is required for attendees. Future versions will fully support Firefox on Mac, Linux and Windows. If the software ends up solid then DimDim could pose an interesting challenge to the current list of paid, hosted web conferencing solutions.

DimDim launches FOSS challenge to WebEx

September 12, 2007

Microsoft RoundTable + Office Live Meeting 2007

I was onsite at a client yesterday and presented to a large group of business and IT staff on the topic of social computing. While many people were in the room - there was greater attendance virtually with several other locations participating in the 4 hour session via Microsoft Office RoundTable and Live Meeting 2007.

I have to say that as a presenter, I was impressed with the experience delivered by the combination of RoundTable and Live Meeting 2007. Feedback from other people participating in the session was equally positive. The audio quality from RoundTable was perceived to be better than the previous conferencing option used. The panoramic video display that RoundTable delivers within the Live Meeting console also received positive comments. The tracking capability of RoundTable was also very good - as people conversed or moved about, the RoundTable system tracked changes in speaker and their location. As I wandered back and forth in front of the room (for instance, to point out certain items on a slide), the system consistently found me in a flawless manner.  The IT folks told me that RoundTable installed without a problem and the integration with MOLM 2007 was seamless.

I expect RoundTable (with its price point) to have a significant impact on how people think about group conferencing (e.g., bridging co-located groups with remote groups). It would be nice to see RoundTable integrated with other web conferencing tools however - it's nice (and expected) to see the level of integration with Live Meeting 2007 but I would like to see interoperability with other tools as well (e.g., IBM Lotus Sametime or Adobe Connect or Cisco Latitude). 

September 10, 2007

WebEx Updates Web Collaboration Suite

Timely update given Microsoft Office Live Meeting 2007:

The WebEx collaboration suite consists of five applications, each designed for specific collaborative business processes. The suite comprises WebEx Meeting Center, WebEx Event Center, WebEx Sales Center, WebEx Training Center and WebEx Support Center.

...

The upgraded platform provides network-based recording (NBR) capabilities for web conferencing, allowing hosts to record sessions and create valuable libraries of archived meetings, events, seminars and support sessions. Unlike traditional desktop-based recording, WebEx network-based recording is optimized to allow on-demand streaming and downloading of archived sessions.

Administrators can configure WebEx NBR to automatically capture all meeting content, including chat, presentations, and audio and video data. WebEx NBR can be easily customized to archive files on a company's write-once read-many (WORM)-compliant storage network. Content is recorded in a highly secure format, optimized for scalable storage, and customers can customize the solution's administrative settings to meet their specific retention polices.

.....

With more than 100 new usability features across the suite, WebEx Fall 2007 makes it easier to participate in meetings. Automatic form completion and attendee profiles with preferred telephone numbers make joining meetings faster and easier. In addition, asynchronous collaboration capabilities improve attendee participation between meetings, whether it is through a customized sales portal in the WebEx Sales Center or an enhanced post-event survey for WebEx Event Center.

Other features highlighted in WebEx Fall 2007 include:

WebEx Meeting Center

- Advanced multimedia presentations with up to six simultaneous live video streams

- Streamlined meeting and audio conferencing with personalized attendee settings

- Presentations with PowerPoint notes/scripts on a private panel visible only to the presenter

WebEx Event Center

- Improved pre- and post-event interactions with advanced closed-loop lead-management capabilities

- Integrated event archiving to create valuable online libraries of recorded events for training or marketing

WebEx Sales Center

- Enhanced prospect portals that accelerate sales cycles by engaging prospects outside the web meeting

- Automatic salesperson notification when prospects access their WebEx Sales Center portals

WebEx Training Center

- Comprehensive testing and tracking capabilities to help instructors monitor learner progress and program effectiveness

- Automated waitlist feature that helps trainers maximize registration WebEx Support Center

- New console option that improves productivity by allowing technical support representatives to easily manage multiple active sessions

- Instant web-based chat without any download for customers

- Customizable chat phrase library to help technical support agents        deliver faster responses and resolution

WebEx Makes the Web a Better Place to Meet with the Launch of Fall 2007 Web Collaboration Suite

August 24, 2007

Why Build A Web Conferencing Tool At All?

In the large enterprise space, and even in SBM space, I find very little traction at all with open source web conferencing tools or any of the other tools cited in this posting. There is tremendous downward pricing pressure on the web conferencing market, the market itself supports over 80 vendors with new entrants continuing to surface. The market is undergoing structural change as web conferencing becomes a feature within a unified communications platform. The dominant model for delivering web conferencing is via a hosted service - on-premises implementations remain the exception (typically driven by a specific application such as e-learning or in companies that are concerned over security and compliance). I expect on-premises deployment to increase given UC platforms likely favor that configuration but the overall trend will be for vendors to offer a hybrid SaaS/software model.

Without the data requirements for the pricing below, it is hard to comment but pricing models are also all over the map. Some vendors who pitch to communication and network groups will talk in terms of "cents per minute". If the vendors are talking to a collaboration team, then the model is typically packaged in terms of shared ports, rooms or per seat models. $200,000 might sound like a lot but that could easily match the fully-loaded costs for a small development team to build and support such a system using open source. Some vendor pricing models charge only for presenters, all attendees are free. I had one client with a subscription model that was .07 cents a minute - not a bad deal.

So with all due respect to Steven - I would not recommend any of the options listed in his article as a starting point. WebEx, Microsoft, Adobe, Cisco, Citrix, Raindance (now part of Intercall), Genesys, Interwise, WebDialogs (now part of IBM), and Oracle are all credible platforms that offer multiple pricing models. And there are many more in the market (Glance Networks as an example for screen sharing).

While working at Novell, I led an initiative of  trying to find a web conference vendor that would help us cut our web conference costs.  I created my RFP (Request For Proposal) and sent it out to many web conference vendors.  When the RFP came back, I was amazed to see how expensive it would be to purchase a web conferencing system for our 5000 person organization.   Not only was the software expensive, but the consulting needed for implementation, training, and support was also very expensive.   The lowest bargain I found was for $200,000, and the most expensive bid was for one million dollars.  $200,000 was truly a remarkable deal compared to the rest of the vendors.  Maintenance and upgrade protection was 15% of the cost: a significant price to pay yearly for the system.   

Since leaving Novell, I have seen how easy it is to build a simple web conferencing tool that will meet the needs of 80% of a team’s requirements.  Several people have built such tools on their own or with a team of two or three developers.

Collaboration Loop - Why Pay For a Web Conferencing Tool, When you Can Build Your Own

August 22, 2007

IBM Acquires WebDialogs

The acquisition of WebDialogs creates as many interesting opportunities for IBM as much as it raises concerns over alignment and integration with Sametime. IBM has struggled over the years to deliver an effective and sustained solution for hosted web conferencing. While I have not come across WebDialogs all that often in the large enterprise (compared to Cisco (WebEx), Microsoft, or Adobe), I expect that IBM gains here are in the SMB market. It also benefits by acquiring the reseller/partner channels of WebDialogs.

During an analyst pre-briefing call, IBM said:

  • the acquisition has already been completed
  • the brand would be "IBM Lotus Sametime Unyte"

Questions I have asked:

Skype alignment

  1. Does this change the business relationships between Skype and WebDialogs (Unyte)
  2. Does this mean we can expect presence and IM federation with Skype users

My view: IBM needs to do this and I believe it will happen. Skype is hugely popular and this type of interoperability would further differentiate IBM from Microsoft (re: IBM's federation with Google/XMPP). I'm not sure that eBay/Skype will get all that closer to IBM though but the technical interop makes sense.

Salesforce AppExchange

  1. You can initiate and manage online meetings from within Salesforce – any changes in how IBM now will work with Saleforce?
  2. Does this signal some greater focus from IBM as a collaboration services provider into AppExchange?

My View: IBM also need to do this as well. This deal gets a lot more strategic (given Cisco's acquisition of WebEx and likely build-out of WebEx Connect). IBM needs to build a relationship with Salesforce in the area of unified communications and collaboration. I can imagine Lotus Connections being valuable within a Salesforce context for instance.

WebDialogs & Sametime

  1. What happens to WebIntertalk

- A click to talk solution for e-Service (more e-Business/CRM centric)

My View: Out of my space but a good question to ask.

Sametime alignment with Unyte Meeting

  1. When to use one or the other? 
  2. Swappable conferencing engines? 
  3. Integration between the two?
  4. Does the Unyte desktop/application/remote control sharing get added into ST? 
  5. Expeditor future as client underpinning?

My view: IBM needs to aggressively get out ahead of this topic and alleviate any fear from the install base that ST web conferencing is no longer strategic, etc. I would expect that the on-premises version of Unyte is not strategic to IBM and that there will not be a swap-in / swap-out option but I can see certain components of Unyte ending up in Sametime and a future role for Expeditor for Unyte.

IBM Online service business model

  1. Keep “Unyte Conference” brand? 
  2. Maintain Webdialogs reseller program?
  3. Move to IBM infrastructure/data centers?
  4. What happens to existing customers, partners, channel?

My view: The branding seems resolved and I expect IBM will maintain current customer and partner relationships for the time being ("do no harm").