Droided: After a Long Detour Around the iPhone

The Droid is the best phone I have owned. I’ve been using an MS Mobile phone (Tmo Dash) for about 3 years. It was the best phone I ever owned until the Droid. But its been obsolete now for several years.

I was going to upgrade my phone last year when the G1 came out, but decided to wait because it was, after-all, a version one phone. I’ve been on Tmobile for years and like them. I was glad to see Tmobile so aggressively supporting Android. Not only was I happy with their service, but their rates too. Plus their phones work seamlessly in Europe. But all that loyalty was wiped away when Verizon got the Droid. Sad really, but devices are one of the few levers carriers have to distinguish themselves.

Several new Android phones hit the market in the past few weeks – Motorola, Samsung, Acer, HTC, and more. But I really wanted a keyboard which narrowed the options. The Motorola/Verizon Droid was clearly the top of the (Android) line – knowing how fast things are changing and how long two years can be makes settling for anything less than the best just silly.

So I moved to Verizon and got a Droid. More on that below, but I need to address the obvious (daresay nagging) question of why I didn’t get the iPhone. By almost all accounts, the iPhone is considered the superior phone. But I decided no more of my dollars will go to Apple about a year ago. So the question became what is the best non Apple phone on the market, and that is the Droid. At least this week.

I was an Apple fan. I few years ago I bought a Ti-Book. I spent several thousand on this beautiful notebook computer along with all the options. I also bought the very first generation iPod 5GB (with a real wheel), and about 6 more iPods since. I was guilty of the crime I despise now – pushing Apple products on others; dumbfounded why others didn’t see the light.

But while I enjoyed my Mac, I began to grow suspicious of the cult I joined. We had our frustrations, but gleefully accepted them like over sized pits in avocados, accepting the overall goodness without complaint. But, I also noticed a couple important trends that were happening. The first and most concerting was my spending patterns changed. I kept giving Apple more money. I bought a case, an OS-X upgrade, a 2^nd power cord, another OS-X upgrade, various Apple programs, even third party products from the Apple Store, iTunes music purchases, and more. That Apple store became just too darn familiar. I concluded that the Apple habit was too expensive and needed to be kicked.

The next observation was issues with my hardware. My power cord got a loose connection, my keyboard started jamming. I had numerous problems with my iPods as well. I had to try out the Genius Bar in their first Colorado store which resulted in sending my Ti-Book in for service. I concluded that part of Apple’s incredible design included the goal of planned obsolescence. I was paying top dollar, but unlike say high-end cars that offer increased reliability or higher residual value, I wasn't getting long term benefits. I felt robbed, my high-end purchases had a rush of short-lived pleasure.

Eventually my Ti-book became unusable and I migrated back to the PC. No ill-will at all – I just didn’t want to spend the money for another Ti-Book. I was also experiencing too many problems with software and websites designed for Windows and IE. That is no longer an issue. Today apps and websites are fairly neutral; in fact the whole notion of the Mac/PC war seems solely an emotional one now- the browser won – not a specific computer.

But I still loved my iPods. I bought a bunch of speaker docks and all was good. But then new models came and my docks didn’t work anymore. In fact, one incompatible Nano-pod ruined a dock. One of my iPods died – the lock switch broke and whenever I took it somewhere the battery was dead on arrival. That one got stolen. I also noticed my video iPod screen was seriously scratched. Kind of surprising because it didn’t get much use/abuse. I compared it to my cell phone which gets used/abused daily (for longer)– it had no scratches. Then a battery needed replacement...

But still loyal, I bought a new 160 GB iPod mostly for videos– my last iPod. I took it on a trip and wanted to share a video with a friend on his TV. I had my trusty video cable I used with my prior iPod, but it didn’t work. I assumed the cable was bad, so purchased a new one ($6). That didn’t work either. A quick Google search told me that Apple encrypted the video-out so only an Apple cable ($40) could be used. Apple actually taxed video out! That did it for me. I felt like Mongo, a pawn in this game.

The video cable pushed me over. But why did it take so long? I had two proprietary power cords for my Mac. I own a lot of consumer devices, but none of the others have proprietary power cords.

I decided no more Apple for me, but I keep seeing the pattern. The iPhone was introduced as the most expensive cell phone ever; and remained so for quite some time despite a series of discounts. The first iPhone got rave reviews, but one persistent complaint; no cut and paste. It took three versions to get that feature added. That sure smelled like planned obsolescence to me. I think of the "prestigious" @mac.com email service which was originally free. Apple started charging despite so many other free email services were available - but so many kept their "prestigious" address for reasons I can't fathom.

I also notice that the Apple Fans love to complain about Apple. I especially see it on Twitter, but whats odd is how happy the complaints are. "Scored on Apple Care, saved me $500", or "Heading to the Genius Bar again, hope they can fix it".

The iPhone changed the rules and broke the barriers. It was the first mobile phone with a real OS and web capability. That was exciting. The Appstore was genius; it simplified the consumer process of shopping for apps and created a powerful revenue stream for Apple. But what bothered me was there was no way to add applications to the iPhone without Apple’s knowledge or consent. Sure enough it didn’t take long for Apple to block programs with ambiguous reasoning. There is no other consumer computing platform restricted to manufacturer approved programs. People argue that its good censorship, that Apple protects their customers. But I don’t get it. Where is the line? If an upgrade comes down next week that blocks certain websites in the browser is that good too? Of if the GPS starts beeping because you are speeding?

I can’t think of any portable consumer electronic device that doesn't allow access to the battery (except iPods). My current cell phone has gone thru several batteries; changing them is easy. Simply order a replacement online and change the battery when it arrives. Batteries are wear parts. Would we accept cars that could only have their tires changed by the dealer?

So I decided no more Apple. It’s been frustrating as the iPhone was clearly a great platform, and I was still stuck with an old phone. Especially being a phone guy, a wimpy phone is terible for one's self esteem. It took several years, but now I am the proud owner of a Motorola Droid. It turns out I could have gotten one sooner; the keyboard I waited for on the Droid isn’t great. I find myself using the soft keyboard more often than I would’ve guessed. But the overall specs on the Droid are pretty impressive.

The Droid has an incredible screen. A very solid feel, a changeable battery and a very nice camera (with flash). Because I have two (home and work ) Google accounts, it was incredibly easy to move into the phone. Literally took seconds and works much better than the Windows Mobile phone which was designed to optimize integration with Exchange. After I moved to Google, my MS Phone could not access Contact notes - things like frequet flyer numbers and stuff. But the Droid got it immediately. The application library (at one tenth the size of the Appstore’s selection) is pretty large. I selected among several Twitter applications. Facebook was already installed. I added an RPN calculator (but no 12c emulation), some games, Shazam, and surprise a Squeezebox remote. I also added Google Sky which is absolutely amazing, though not terribly practical for me.

Though there are some over sized avocado pits with the Droid too. My old phone had only one app I was using - remote access to my home automation system. It is available for the iPhone, but not Android. My old phone automatically switched my phone to vibrate during appointments - the Droid can't, but I did find a $3 application that says it will. I think applications are great, but they should not be needed for functionality that should have been included. I also find switching between my Google accounts more complex. On the Droid, it involves several steps and I need to manually select each account. On on my old phone I could just use the D button to toggle through the accounts.

But I am enjoying the openness. I added a barcode scanner - it was originally blocked on the iPhone. The Droid came with native Adobe Flash (and YouTube) support and I added the Google Voice client – two apps blocked on the iPhone. Reviews I’m reading give the Apple browser a slight edge over the Droid browser – but soon Mozilla will be releasing an Android Firefox browser (won’t be available on the iPhone) which will likely best both. In other words, I like that I am the only one blocking apps on my phone.

Even with all these blocked apps it doesn't even make a dent in the disparity of the applications available on Android vs. the iPhone. I hope and expect that more applications will be coming to the Android Marketplace, but I am unsure when or if the gap will cease. I truly believe that Apple made the Android phone possible; and I appreciate it. One phone does not suit all, and a choice is important.

UPDATE: I just installed the Evernote Beta - not available through the Marketplace. I downloaded it from the website and installed the app - without jail-breaking my phone!

Do UC the Doc or the Soup Nazi?

Technology can lower costs and increase productivity; though sometimes neither. My first telecom job involved auto attendants; initially they did both. But somewhere along the line they became more focused on cost savings. Instead of simply routing calls; they attempted to service calls with various degrees of success and coronaries. I am going to try to keep this post UC focused and constructive, but there is a rant in here trying to get out.

Unified Communications was a term created to add some intelligence to voice processing. One goal might be to increase the productivity of first contacts. You hear this one frequently associated with presence. Another goal could be to treat calls with more intelligence or context. Whatever the goal, the barriers are less frequently the technologies. The bigger challenge is more likely the culture of the organization or industry. This brings me to the local medical practitioner.

Recently, I had to call my doctor's office. They were supposed to order a new blood test, but didn't. Anything I don't have to do 8-5 I do later in the day. So I called my Doc after hours with the intent of leaving a reminder voice mail. I called the office number and got this familiar medical greeting: "If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 9-1-1". Before getting into broader UC, let me just rant about this ridiculous and ubiquitous medical greeting.

First off, it seems cluetard stupid to me; a bit like preschool. "When done with the paste, but the lid back on." If anyone thinks that that a doctor that can't make it on-time to an appointment booked two months in advance is going to respond to an emergency faster than the 9-1-1 infrastructure, then they deserve a lesson in Darwinism. The whole message smells like lawsuit defense - "Your honor, I'm sorry the patient died while on hold, but we did say to dial 9-1-1". But it isn't even good lawsuit protection because the instructions are flawed. They should state "If this is an emergency, hang-up, lift the receiver again, wait for dial-tone, and then dial 9-1-1". Or, "hang-up, dial 9-1-1 and press send", or "hang-up, dial 9, 9-1-1". Really, to be safe, it should state Press 1 if you are dialing from a cell phone, 2 from an analog land-line, and 3 from an office PBX", and then provide the correct instructions. But even that is flawed because someone could say they followed the instructions and just hung-up not realizing that more steps followed.

So the 9-1-1 instructions bothered me, but didn't frustrate me. That came next when the greeting stated that I needed to call during normal office hours and can't leave a message. Basically the whole greeting said go away. If it was an emergency go away, if was regarding prescriptions go away, if it was for anything else- go away. Do you remember Major Major from Catch-22? "With a little ingenuity and vision, he had made it all but impossible for anyone in the squadron to talk to him."

Unified communications has come so far. Unified Messaging, presence, mobility, APIs, FMC - all in the spirit of making communications more efficient and adaptive to our work styles. But the basic medical office still uses human gate keepers to prevent communications. We have gone from house calls to totally impersonal communication. Remember, all I wanted to do was to leave a reminder message. Now I need to waste my time to make a second call during the day, go through a gate keeper to get a message to a PA, so they can call me back with instructions. Yes, I am calling for UC medical reform with a public option for better service.

It seems to me that the medical community has placed too much value on protecting the doctor from patients. Doctors are the exact opposite of realtors which are happy to give you every possible number where they might be reachable. Doctors hide - they hide behind their own office staff and then hide behind answering services when the staff goes home. The whole thing reminds me of the Soup Nazi episode:

JERRY: The main thing is to keep the line moving.

GEORGE: All right. So, you hold out your money, speak your soup in a loud,

clear voice, step to the left and receive.

JERRY: Right. It's very important not to embellish on your order. No

extraneous comments. No questions. No compliments.

Most discussions around UC in medical offices tend to focus on things like automatic appointment reminder calls, tele-medicine, or other measures to increase productivity and/or profits. I want to start the discussion using UC to improve doctor/patient care. Other professions, say lawyers and CPAs, are much better at this than doctors. I can call both my lawyer or my CPA and talk to them. If they are unavailable, I can leave a direct personal message. Get this, I can even book an appointment for a conference call. They understand my time is valuable too; and appropriately invoice me for their time. Why can't doctors deal with this concept?

Doctors needs to use their gate-keepers to process the messages; not prevent them. The technology can be a huge boon to service - not just profit. I had a doctor (went out of business) that had just started embracing email. He encouraged me to take my blood pressure in those free machines when I shopped and to email the results from my phone so they could update my records. Great idea. Takes a minute; and when I see the doc annually; he can see my scores over time instead of just that day.

Doctors, particularly in private practice, are under considerable pressure to see more patients. Here is an idea, use the darn phone! Even video calls are pretty easy thanks to iChat, AIM, and Skype; easier than in the corporate space. Not all appointments require a visit or expensive equipment. A typical medical appointment lasts about 15 minutes, but consumes close to 90 minutes of time. UC discussions always include business processes, but sometimes those processes are flawed (like too much gate keeping). How about using UC to increase answering the phone and reducing communication attempts. How about sending email reminders about calendar appointments or even sending an Outlook or Google calendar appointment by email.

There is lots of talk about using UC for productivity gains - things like screen pops and automatic appointment reminder calls (post at UC Strategies). At Astricon, they demonstrated a method to use the IVR to read a practice calendar and initiate reminder calls. UC technologies are enabling things like centralized appointment scheduling and hot-desking, but the conversation is about productivity and profitability. I want it to shift to improved care.

Carriers are Blowing it with Android

The wireless carriers are making a big mistake with Android phones - they are requiring they be purchased with data plans.

I can see their (flawed) logic. What they really want are expensive recurring service contracts, the Android phones are really meant for use with data plans, so forcing customers that want Android phones to purchase two year data commitments makes perfect sense. Except one thing; it doesn't.

They are missing a whole market - namely teenagers.

I bought my Droid today and with it, dragged my kid along from Tmobile to Verizon too. The reason is because the individual plans are too expensive compared to family plans. My kid doesn't care and wasn't under any contract any more. In fact, Verizon offered him a new shiny phone and Tmobile wanted to sell him an upgraded phone.

So now the fun part - phone shopping with a teen. He evaluates phones differently than I do, solely based on its texting ergonomics. He hardly ever makes a call, and he knew a data plan wasn't even on the table. He needs to be able to type with one hand on the sly in the classroom, and two handed for more thoughtful conversations. He went thru the entire line of Verizon phones from a texting perspective and of course texted his friends for opinions.

I like free phones. Especially as a new customer they offer some decent free phones. But he rejected all the free phones. Then they go from about $40 to $200. Of course, he wanted the $200 phone. I am thinking $200 for a non data phone... yeah right.

One important piece of background information I need to mention is he also wanted (a few months back) an Apple Touch. His friend has one and finds it a superior alternative to Nintendo gaming devices - plus with wifi you can do things like check your email - even at school. Although I've had my share of Apple devices including a TiBook and at least 5 iPods - I declared no more Apple purchases in this household about a year ago. That is potentially another blog post. So suffice to say no Touch here, but it brings me to the obvious conclusion of the best phone to get the lad.

The Android Motorola Eris. It is $100, so a bit more than I wanted to spend - but really two devices in one. It would be his phone and texting partner - plus his Touch alternative. He could download games, music and various other apps - and use it to check his email at home and at school.

Apple clearly demonstrated with the Touch there is a huge market for non phone devices - so why don't the carriers encourage or even offer Android phones with their non data plans? I don't know the real cost of these devices - only the subsidized retail prices. The LG Touch phone is $199 and the Motorola Eris is $99. I will assume that they could offer the Eris for $199 without a data plan. But consider the value proposition if Verizon (or others) offered an Android phone without a data plan:

1) My kid starts buying apps in the marketplace (much like Touch users do in the AppStore). This ties him to this and similar devices for quite some time as it increases the cost of dumping the platform. Some of those apps will make money for Verizon or the (fill in the blank) wireless carrier. There is no loyalty stick with the non data phones.

2) My kid will increasingly use the email and other apps that require wifi or Internet. The times where there is no wifi will increase and frustration will grow. It is just a matter of time until the kid requires a data plan. I know that already. But now it will be cheaper to change carriers when that time comes.

3) I am willing to pay more for this phone/Touch device because it has more purpose. Buying him a phone does not solve the game device problem, email problem, or other apps problem. The fact is there are lots of apps in those stores - none of which will work on his new Verizon phone.

4) No carrier is offering Android without a data plan - yet they are all vying for a competitive edge - especially regarding hardware. A carrier with Android without data would have an edge.

5) I haven't even mentioned the (free) social apps - These guys are in Facebook every 10 minutes. They have the cell phone on them - the laptop is only attached part time. To be able to update status with one hand while flipping channels with the other hand is pretty cool.

6) As I illustrated above - I would have paid more for such a device than a non data phone. If Verizon is wondering how they could have gotten more out of me -here is the answer.


We live in a connected world - and although carriers may only value that when its connected via their network, they are being very shortsighted. This is the same logic Apple, Dell, and Google use with their huge educational discount programs - train them while they are young and keep them.

Teenagers today have cell phones. They don't have data plans, but why the carriers don't encourage them to use Android phones is a mystery to me. They are missing a huge opportunity.

VoiceCon - Clear Signaling and No Jitter

This week is VoiceCon-SFO.

This event is fueling a number of upcoming posts. But let me just share a few observations.

First off, VoiceCon always exceeds my expectations. This year is no exception, but in unexpected ways. I've been Tweeting a bit about it, and I realized it was actually this show a year ago that I decided to try Twitter.

This is the smaller of the two VoiceCon Shows each year (Orlando in 6 months). There was some concern that it might be too small. But they decided to combine it with Enterprise 2.0 and attendance pretty much hit the higher guesses and poof: a real event.

The ironic surprise is that VoiceCon has been falsely criticized in the past of being too vendor focused. A sea of competitors and not enough customers/prospects. Well this year, the vendors didn't show. It's all customers. The missing vendors include:
-Aastra
-Digium
-Cisco
-Mitel
-Nortel (excused)
-Microsoft
-NEC
-Shoretel

Avaya, IBM, and Siemens seem to be having a great time. Though they aren't the only ones. The exhibit hall was absolutely packed - I don't recall dealing with crowds like that on an exhibit floor. Because they added in the Enterprise 2.0 exhibitors - there were one or two new types of interesting complementary solutions. Also intriguing to see Skype here (though they had absolutely nothing to say).

The economic situation is clearly felt. Fred Knight suggested a round of applause for attendees just for coming. The lunches are to-go sandwiches. Agenda topics include things like "Cost Containment and Control". You can't ignore the situation, but attendees are relaxed. Much less suits and ties than usual. There seems to be some general optimism that 2009 is nearly over.

The side conversations are always the real fun part. Nothing too surprising. Still no two people agree what "Unified Communications" means, but some consensus the term is useless. One might conclude presence has become more important than voice, email, or breathing.

One thing that struck me is how much the landscape has changed. This is an enterprise voice show and the topics are presence, cell phones, and business processes. The vendor names bandied about are Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, Siemens, Skype, and Google. The one Keynote presenter I could have predicted a few years ago, Avaya, included a re-enactment of getting tech support and wanting to strangle the tech after finally reaching him. Where am I, Really?

Not everything is Bizzaro Voicecon - some things are quite predictable. The sessions are fun. The VP's that are pitching ease of use still can't do their own demos, and video conferencing for the masses is still a year away.

I got to participate in a panel about the future of the IP phone. This was fun. It had to do with an article I wrote that 2008 will be a record year for IP Phones. That piece hit a nerve with some folks - but created some interesting and healthy conversation. So far, 2009 appears to agree with me; but many folks do not. I intend to write up a follow-up piece on this topic - but let me clarify a few points:

1. I prefer hard phones over soft phones
2. I believe the voice portion of the communications puzzle will continue to decline
3. I believe the conversation will continue to shift from endpoint to applications
4. I don't believe the phone will actually disappear in the near term - but will continue to decline in importance.
   
5. I believe that people will stop paying more than $300 for a phone that does hold, transfer, and speaker no matter how nice the screen is.

Beyond that, I need to update the piece in a separate post. But it was fun playing the contrarian. The panel also included Alan Sulkin who believes analog will outlive SIP, Steve Leaden who shared some consulting projects that are de-emphasizing the phone, and Steve Hardy from Avaya who won't rest until everyone has an expensive phone.

You can read more about the panel here (or here in Japanese).

Unfortunately, I need to depart for Boulder before the conference ends. I am particularly disappointed I won't be able to attend Thursday's session on the cloud's role in communications.

All in all a decent week for communications. VoiceCon-SFO, I got T.38 fax working at home, I got my Google Wave invite, and I get a new Droid phone on Friday.

So that is it for now...and probably for this week at Pin Drop Soup - but here are a few links of stuff I wrote recently that weren't posted here:

Telecom:
VoiceCon: PolyCom New Phones.
Android Anigma

Home Tech:
Home Audio with Squeezebox
Home Security with Combination Deadbolts

Google Voice [Mail] - Press ? Now

Ten transient thoughts on the recent mediocre Google Voice announcement.

What Happened:
Google Voice took what was finally being understood as "Google Voice" and took out most of its features and launched it as "Google Voice" to a different group of users. More specifically, they said that those that want to use its voice mail features on existing "mobile" phones, may do so.

A few very important things didn't change. It is not a readily available product. It is still a selective product (rules of universal access don't apply). It is still a free product. Any changes in those areas would be big news. The news itself is not particularly newsworthy or even interesting. But I suspect the reasons behind it are.

Discussion:
1) Porting: The first thing that needs to be clarified is this is not the same as supporting number portability (as Gizmodo reported). No one is porting numbers into Google Voice (a restriction that many have complained about) - that would be news. Voice mail is delivered via call forwarding - this is true on cell phones and land lines. For conditions of busy and no answer, the call is forwarded to a different number where a voice mail system answers and processes the call.

2) Features and Revenue: Google Voice offers a number of unique features - particularly popular is ring-all, conferencing, and yes voice mail which includes transcription. The service is free, but isn't free for Google to deliver. How Google intends to monetize the service hasn't been shared. But one theory is Google can attach advertising keywords to voice mail once its transcribed. The fact they are opening up Google voice to more users and reducing its services concurrently could be a signal that advertising is indeed the key monetization strategy. The full blown Google Voice includes free domestic long distance and cheap International rates - this new service only offers cheap international rates. They cut the lost leaders and kept the revenue generating aspects.

3) Who: Oddly, they are positioning the voice mail service to "existing mobile phone numbers" only. Call forwarding works the same on all phones and there is no reason to limit the service to cell phones. That might suggest there is something desirable about the cell phone demographic; maybe the one to one (phone number and user) relationship. It just seems a bit odd to announce a new service and arbitrarily limit the potential users.

4) Free voice mail: Particularly free voice mail that offers transcription and sends SMS alerts is news. This will significantly threaten a mature industry known as hosted voice mail which usually sells services similar to with a per user per month model. Also this week we learned Google's Android 2.0 phones include free turn by turn navigation and the edia response is GPS shares "plunge" or GPS makers are on a "Road to Nowhere". But what about all those voice mail services out there that just got a big national brand competitor giving away their livelihood? I didn't see any news about that. Companies such as jott.com, americanvoicemail.com, ringcentral.com, freedomvoice.com, voicenation.com, and many many more have some interesting times ahead.

5) Name: Why exactly didn't Google rename the service? "Google Voice Mail", "Google Voice Lite", whatever.... The issue here is so many people remain confused about this service that offering two forms of the service with the same name can't be a good thing.

6) Grass Roots: No mention of "Take Back the Beep". New York Times columnist David Pogue is working to create awareness and anger around the way the cell phone companies make millions on their voice mail service. Very few people realize they are being duped. The scam is most users get free calls within their carrier (cell to cell), but cell to voice mail (land line) are not free. This is inverse logic, the call is free if they answer, but costs me if they don't. Worse than that, if you do go to voice mail - the carrier's voice mail systems are very slow and offer ridiculous menu choices (to page this person...) to lengthen the call (same to the customer when they dial in to check messages). The mystery here is Google offers a competitive service, that is free and targeted to cell phone users and make no mention of Pogue, the NY Times or Take Back the Beep.

7) Members Only: Even this new version of Google Voice is by invitation only. Why? Invitations are not hard to get, and this streamlined service has less cost than the full Google Voice offering - why not just offer the service? Google Voice remains a mystery - many people are reluctant to give out their Google Voice number as the service has no clear or public direction or strategy from Google.

8) What's in a Number? Google is effectively explaining that they can't offer all of their advanced services with just any number - that only one of their numbers (that they provide and assign) can be fully functional Google Voice numbers. It provides an image of giant super servers with lots of flashing lights. GV does support porting out of GV (you can make their number unspecial and keep it), but won't support number porting in. Not even for a fee. Clearly a deliberate and artificial restriction. They now support some limited features for those with call forwarding, and that generates news. Hello? The real conversation is why won't Google support number porting?

9) Tropics: What about speech recognition quality? In most situations I review the text version of my voice mail before I hear it. About 50% of the time, I can't even figure out the topic until I hear it. Transcription is really a key feature that sets Google Voice mail apart from the competitors, but it needs a lot of work. I use Goog-411 farily regularly and find it pretty accurate. I assume it is the same engine, and the different results are due to people knowing when they are speaking to a computer. On Goog-411 I speak slowly and clearly, but no so when I leave a voice message for someone. We all act a little differently when we speak a computer, for example, when I computer asks me why I am calling, instead of saying "general merchandise inventory selection question" i just say "Operator".

10) Synchronized Messaging: When voice mail to email first came out, it as largely done with forwarding a copy of the voice mail to the email. This created two copies of the message and two to process and delete. That slowly improved with IMAP and other means of keeping one instance of the message - delete once. Google Voice is still forwarding the message. In my case, I have three to delete - SMS, email, and GV Inbox. Not offering synchronization options is a down right primitive. Even worse, the dial-in telephone user interface offers up unread messages - of which the vast majority of my messages are since I play them in email. As a voice mail only service, Google Voice isn't particularly innovative or feature rich.


I found the news this week about Google Voice interesting, but not in itself. It is interesting the Google is dramatically changing and clouding (pun intended) the service's value proposition. It was all about a single number for life regardless of the devices and services used - now it is a service with your existing voice mail. The other thing was how much attention the relatively minor news got, and how little coverage its bigger ramification got regarding the threat to established voice mail providers. I remain a big fan of Google Voice and use it heavily, but remain cautiously optimistic about where the service is going.


For additional information on Google Voice:
No Jitter: The Google Voice Disruption
Prediction: GV Premier Edition
Google Voice After 1 Week
What is Google Voice

Time for Certification?

In recessions and periods of high unemployment - it might be a good time to get some tech certs. Or not? Many telecom manufacturers restrict technical certifications. A model that needs to change.

IDC predicts North American businesses expect to hire another 180,000 networking professionals by 2011, they'll face a shortfall of 65,000 workers, especially for specialized networking positions. In particular, says IDC, "organizations will face an increasing shortage of people within the areas of network security and specialized network skills such as IP telephony and wireless networking."

IDC further specifically recommends its readers should obtain Cisco or Microsoft certifications in (among others) voice telephony.

DESPITE an economy in which IT training budgets are going down, IT certification has remained strong. Suzana Lopes, Director at Pearson VUE (a testing provider), said:

"We have seen no drop-off in demand or in numbers of candidates...It seems to be generally anticipated that, as the economy suffers, both IT professionals and those who use IT in their day-to-day work are placing increased emphasis on gaining meaningful qualifications, to gain a competitive edge in a tougher employment market.”

But the majority of voice equipment makers don't open their training or certifications to the general public. This restriction is common with the traditional telecom vendors that originally adopted the practice as a means of protecting their channel.

Ten years ago, the PBX was a hardware solution. Unauthorized dealers also known as "trunkers" could find parts on the gray market and undercut the authorized dealers. All they needed was some basic knowledge of how the parts fit together. The manufacturers responded by allowing only dealer sponsored individuals to obtain factory training. This protection is mostly obsolete now that voice systems are software based. Changes today require software options or licenses constrained to authorized dealers with passwords and licensing servers.

Today the restriction actually hurts the dealers and manufacturers. A dealer must hire someone without certifications (generally these certs are non transferable either - another form of dealer protection), and spend thousands of dollars on certification courses (plus travel and salary) on unproven staff.

Conversely, many of the new generation of voice solution providers have the ability to hire staff pre-certified. The risk or cost of certification may have even been borne by the technician. The same is true for employers that frequently list various certifications as position requirements. Training and education are among the first things cut when times are tough. Additionally, they are a relatively low cost way for job seekers to strengthen their hire-ability. They carry so much weight, that even some universities include coursework designed to obtain vendor certifications as part of their curriculum.

Cisco, Microsoft, and Digium - three vendors that are experiencing growth in voice - require technical candidates to complete exams for certification. They don't require formal classes, and use outside centers like Pearson Vue or Prometric for testing. This is a similar concept to becoming a lawyer - you must past the Bar Exam - law school is optional. It is a difficult transition for organizations that rely on training as a profit center. Aastra, Mitel, Toshiba, and NEC require factory classes and sponsorship by a dealer. Some don't even have tests - the class is enough.

The restricted model really needs to change. It places the risk on the dealer and doesn't necessarily even result with trained professionals. Nor does it allow individuals to become certified in a particular product on their own. If there is truly going to be a shortage of skilled network professionals, then it is in the industry's best interest to figure out how to get training more readily available. It seems to be perfectly logical for most vendors to offer free traning on their websites - the only one I found doing so is ShoreTel.

Supply of technical capabilities can actually create demand. This is one reason why Google is recruiting universities (and subsequently 6 million students) to Google Apps for Email. That's a lof of the next work-force generation that will be comfortable with this once obscure service. Microsoft and Apple also invest heavily in training the up and coming generation to be savvy with their products and services.

I noticed that some certifications for Avaya, Siemens, and Nortel are available from Pearson Vue and Prometric - but I am not familiar enough with them to know if they are the full product certs or more general designations. My expectation would be that most of their advanced training are limited to dealer sponsorship. Please post details in comments below if you know otherwise.

I've done a few posts on our general economy and the recession and believe education is of paramount importance to general success. It frustrates me to see quality training in innovative products limited to so few.

Convergence 2.0: VoIP and Mobility

About 10 years ago, the PBX phone held its business use territory and the cell phone was used only when mobility required it. The cell phone offered mobility, but the cost was high in both price/minute and quality compromises. It was socially accepted and expected to reconnect once the mobile user arrived at a place where a land-line was available.

Not so today. Now the cell phone is our friend - quite literally we are connected at the hip. Today, it is perfectly reasonable to use the cell phone right at the desk - and more and more we give out the cell number as our primary one.

The PBX has attempted to hold on to its relevance through advanced features. Increasingly, those features are being extended to the mobile phone. One turn of events could be the cellular phone industry discovers hosted PBX services and competes with the PBX. But there hasn't been any evidence they have figured this out. Instead, the PBX makers are rushing now to embrace the cell phone as part of a VoIP Enterprise mobility solution.

Currently there are two primary means of PBX/Mobile phone integration; cellular extension and FMC.

With cellular extension the PBX calls the cell phone with a newer form of call forwarding. Unlike yesterdays call forwarding or ring-all features, the PBX does not hang up after the cell phone is answered. Instead the PBX continues to monitor the call for DTMF commands. The commands allow access to core PBX functionality such as transfer or three way calling. This strategy will expand to include call center features, call recording, and even conferencing services. Since the PBX stays on until the call is disconnected - it can properly report status/presence to other enterprise users ("on cell phone").

This service is available from several platforms including Mitel (Dynamic Extension) and Avaya (One-X). This model works well for incoming calls but does requires memorization of dialed feature codes. Outbound dialing is a bit more complex - the cell phone needs to establish a session with the PBX first which can be done in a variety of ways. The service is positioned as an additional cost feature and requires additional trunking capacity on the PBX.

Fixed Mobile Convergence involves using a SIP phone client on the cell phone and using WiFi to access the PBX. In some situations, the call can automatically be routed back over the carrier's wireless network when the phone is moved out of wifi range (Tmobile offers this). Though normally this re-routing is a manual process. The benefit of this solution is a single device (within a limited wifi footprint) and mobility without per minute charges from the wireless carrier. But the SIP phone features are very limited on a traditional PBX and voice over wifi has its unique set or challenges.

Neither of these solutions are ideal and represent a step on a journey to a more seamless solution. The problem is that a transparent solution is not even on the horizon yet. My crystal ball is a bit cloudy, but I think the ideal solution is a hard wired phone/dock that can convert a cellular phone into a PBX extension.

Mitel offered a similar concept a few years ago with their 5230 IP phone. But rather than utilize a cell phone, it used an HP IPAQ PDA. It was a clever concept that failed miserably. The idea was the Ipaq was the brains of the phone with contacts and call logs. Various dock connectors assured compatibility with multiple Ipaq models. The idea was when you are in the office, you can put the Ipaq in the cradle for charging and access its phone book for click to dial. Outside of the office, you can view the call history log to, for example, look up a number from earlier in the day. There are probably multiple reasons why the product failed, but one big one is the PDA soon died out and was replaced with smartphones such as the Treo.

I recently saw another type of docking phone at Astricon. UDC Systems showed off a new wifi phone with a dock. This solution enables a video/SIP/wifi phone to become a wired phone while charging in its dock. When the wireless phone was in its base, it had a decent speaker and handset. Partnered with the SQ-3500 video wireless handset - and you have wifi/wired video SIP phone.


This is getting pretty close - what I really want is a cell phone that goes into a land dock. The concept isn't revolutionary - particularly in cars. But because of the quantity of cell phone models - no real standard has been established. I believe the answer is a cell standard that allows me to insert my cell phone into a dock at home, in the car, and here is the cool part - the VoIP PBX phone. This will require considerable cooperation between PBX and wireless carriers, but offers a unique set of capabilities - particularly if partnered with a residential base unit as well.

The residential problem isn't getting much attention at all. The landlines are going the way of the dodo, but the cell phones aren't utilizing the house wiring. Phone jacks are in most rooms - inserting a cell phone into a base for charging could easily enable house jacks to work with standard analog phones. There are a few solutions on the market such as this one.

But the bigger play is with enterprise voice. Now we are into the pure fictional part of this post. Consider a base/dock like the Unidata base above. No dial pad necessary, maybe a few keys including an emergency button. The phone in this state will be a basic internal extension on the PBX with an internal-only class of service.

1. The primary user arrives at the office and inserts their cellular cell phone into the dock for charging (milestone one - a universal cell phone dock standard including input voltage for charging). The base recognizes the phone and becomes active for that specific user's extension/DID (milestone two - hoteling or hotdesking based on cellular hardware id lookup). The base unit is now capable of making or receiving PBX and cell phone calls including hard buttons for hold and conference that work with either type of call (milestone three - signaling standard for common features).
   
2. The phone can be removed from the base during a call and via FMC, the call is automatically transferred from VoIP PBX to cellular (milestone four FMC standard - maybe even transfer to wifi-n first).
   
3. In the car, the cell phone redocks for charging and car audio speakers (milestone five - new standard for car dock/integration).
   
4. Then at home, it can be inserted into a residential base which uses typical daisy-chain residential wiring to utilize analog phones throughout the home (milestone six - FMC with analog trunks) or in the case of no land-line make its cellular service seamlessly available to all analog phones in the home (milestone seven - analog to cellular bridge).

There is a lot of wish list milestones there, but it isn't anything too unreasonable. Taking the brains of the desk phone with us has been tried before and makes a lot of sense. Making our cell phones more functional while at home charging, particularly as they are increasingly replacing landlines also makes sense. Today, we mostly holster our cell phones at home. There are some hopes of changing that - consider the dock for the new Droid phone which transforms the cell phone into a residential clock and weather station while charging. Not yet married into the home phone system, but at least more use-able and could replace a travel clock.

This scenario is pretty far off for lots of reasons. The PBX makers have no influence with the wireless carriers who are increasingly losing influence with cell phone equipment makers. More likely, a different reality will emerge as this one may require too much coordination among parties. However, there are no real technical limitations to this proposed reality and in fact, quite a few benefits - particularly to the end user.