Every once in a very long while, I get to review a product that strikes me as a stepping stone toward the future. Microsoft Lync 2010 combines instant messaging, VoIP calling, live meetings, and videoconferencing, but it's more than the sum of these parts. Although Lync integrates with almost any PBX, it puts the PC at the centre of communications so effectively that it could send your current phone system packing.
Lync provides clear VoIP calling and crisp videoconferencing without requiring special network accommodations. It integrates with Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SharePoint and Microsoft Office, bringing user presence information to Outlook and SharePoint team sites and allowing instant messages and phone calls to be initiated with a click.
Lync provides a much richer communications experience than any traditional PBX, all at a compelling price. The RFP competition at the Orlando 2010 VoiceCon, for example, tossed out a stunning result: even when evaluated only on its voice capabilities, Lync was less expensive than the Asterisk-based solution, while still largely fulfilling the RFP. Microsoft argues that many of the RFP requirements missing from Lync (such as automatic callback) are unnecessary in a presence-based, unified communications solution.
It's a fair argument. The days of the hard phone definitely seem to be dwindling as a new generation of users live and breathe software-based communications devices. Looking at my computer's desktop, which shows three different IM connections while beside it my office telephone sits buried under papers, I have to think that traditional telephony vendors are missing the point when trying to duplicate an office telephone in software. Lync really is a step forward into a new era of the combined comfort zone of IM, voice, and video in a single manageable client.
For the review, Microsoft's Lync team visited my lab at the University of Hawaii. The Lync capabilities they demonstrated obviously shared some DNA with the previous Live Communications Server 2005 and Office Communications Server 2007 products, but had just as clearly benefited from the hard knocks experienced by the LCS/OCS user community. At nearly every step in the demo, I saw how different Lync was from its predecessors. It almost seemed like Microsoft had used my list of LCS/OCS gripes as a product road map.
Lync is not only more functional and easier to use, but significantly easier to deploy and manage than the previous generations. Unlike the last pass with OCS, Lync no longer requires integration with Exchange, Active Directory, and SQL Server, but incorporates all the required services into a single installer. Gone also is the multitude of management consoles, replaced by a single Lync console over SSL. Naturally, Lync can still be integrated with Exchange and Active Directory, and it can be scaled across multiple servers to support large environments, but the single-server footprint makes Lync a good fit for smaller businesses as well. (Additionally, Lync is available from the cloud in Office 365.)
For IT organisations concerned about the cost and effort required to set up and maintain VoIP systems, the best part of Lync may be Microsoft's core codecs (RTAudio and RTVideo), which do not require ultra-low error rates and hygienically pure networks but are able to handle the wild west of unmanaged public Internet connections. With Lync, there's no need to invest in creating a pristine or isolated network, or to spend megabucks on specialised VoIP test tools.
New communications paradigm
One message that came through loud and clear during the testing is that Lync not a "better PBX" - instead, it's as much a paradigm shift as web browsers were to bulletin boards. A reimagined approach to connecting today's far-flung information workers, Lync starts with integrated voice, video, and IM, then builds on these tools to weave a communications workflow through the enterprise with features either not found in today's PBX offerings or are horribly expensive when added to the PBX mix.
For example, voice and videoconferencing can be provisioned as easily as a meeting announcement, without a multipoint conferencing unit (MCU) costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, nor does conferencing require dedicated endpoints or expensive ISDN circuits. Further, the conferencing lobby (aka waiting area) does not require an additional MCU/bridge license, as it does with some conferencing solutions.
Office Communications Server 2007 required a five-server cluster. The entire demo rig for Lync 2010 fit into a pelican case shipped to my lab. The low-profile workstation on the left is running the whole works
Comments
Steve8620 said: if you've ever used Lotus Sametime for chat, you will hate Lync 2010. Although it's almost a dead product, Sametime is so much more polish and functional then Lync.
Bob Brown said: I have a couple clients that use it...and it's not the roaring success this write-up describes it as. It seems to have all the right features and if they were stable it would be adequate...but it just doesn't seem to be there. Maybe its just their implementation...but it feels unfinished from what i've seen. (would Demo great...but reality seems like a different thing)
Iggyst00ge said: Lync makes me regret taking traditional phone service for granted. I miss the instantaneous dial tone, lag less phone calls, being able to pick up the handset before it kicks over to voicemail.I need to have my PC on and running the client to take calls, which seems like a bad idea to begin with -- no phone service if you're rebooting or the machine is in the shop. If I'm doing anything intensive on my box, I get lag or the call kicks over to voicemail.The phone service is unreliable enough in our shop that I, like many coworkers, now have my calls forwarded to my personal cell phone.It's fine with messaging and as a collaborative tool, but the drop in phone usability makes me want to strangle myself.
Mike said: Well this article shows exactly why things should be tried in the real world. In the real world, Lync sucks! Well I should say if you are using tit for INTERNAL communication and collaboration it's fine. It;s when you try to collaborate with people OUTSIDE of your domain...you know, with customers, prospects, partners, etc. It is pretty much a worthless client for trying to do any of these cools things...because you can't. One must step through a huge amount of technical configurations and settings, like "federation" and it's just a major main in the a##. Now with GoToMeeting and Webex including video in their offerings, it's so much more SIMPLE to use those services than Lync. Which is a shame because I am big fan of Microsoft products....this one however, is NOT a good product for anything other than internal communication.
quentin02 said: One of the more impressive reviews I have come across. To me, the combo of quality, integration, and price is what makes <a<br>href='http://www.suddencommunication...'>MicrosoftLync server the best bet to be the most successful UC product ever. </a<br>