>Also, I think Octel is very well positioned for the future. They appear to be leading the race in unified messaging.
Just because Octel was first (an arguable claim) with UM, does not mean that they are leading the race. NT and exchange make UM very simple. There are several players now, with many more set to announce. Like so many VM "features" the market is screaming for it, but there does not seem to be a big number of customers willing to pay for it yet.
I seems that most the big VM players have all stumbled, and deserve the beating they have taken. OCTL has not delivered the Sierra patch or IMA. CGRM, avtc, and ACVC are having difficulty making any money. BSN's NT system is having major problems in the field.
The nature of VM is changing. Most CPE's want NT and exchange ont he desktop. However, none of the big players have system built from the ground up on NT and Exchange. Instead, there is a box that connects the two systems (aka Octel UM) which is not really an exchange solution. The companies that currently have NT do not have credibility or reputation to get big accounts.
SP on the other hand, wants bullet-proof reliability. VM has never been required to have the same reliability as the switching equipment. That is changing as VM is now a major revenue source for SP's (especially in cellular).
Lastly, all major VM providers have propriatary platforms (to some degree). The CPE VMsystem will look more like a NW server in the future, and less like today's proprietary stand-alone VM product. Open standards will be a must. Features, support, performance, and reliability will be the product differentiators. Customers will be able to mix VM vendors brands (to a certain extent).
I do not think that overcrowding is the problem. I think that execution has been the biggest problem across the board. The VM business is changing. OCTL, and all of its major competitors will have to change they way they do business and their product strategy, or a handful of innovative small upstarts will kill them all. |
