Whose Mobility is Better, Microsoft or Cisco?
By Scott Hoffpauir, Managing Partner
Recently, Microsoft and Cisco announced mobile enhancements for their collaboration offerings. Looking back, mobility has always been an add-on, but now mobility has become a core tenant to their solutions. While the enhancements offered by both companies offer similar end user functionality, how they do it is quite different. Let’s explore some of the differences and the pros / cons of each.
Microsoft’s Operator Connect Mobile extends their PSTN based Operator Connect to a service provider’s mobile network, supporting direct connectivity between the Teams cloud and a supported service provider’s mobile network. This is almost identical to how we did mobile network integration at BroadSoft.
Using the same APIs as Operator Connect, an administrator can designate a mobile phone number to be associated with a user’s Teams account. The APIs change the user’s configuration in the mobile network, causing all incoming and outgoing calls (and eventually texts) to be routed to the Teams cloud. The end user makes use of the mobile device’s native interface to make and receive calls and texts.
On the other side, Cisco’s Webex Go takes a very different approach. Cisco sells a SIM which is attached to the Webex cloud. Using the multi-SIM capabilities available in almost all iOS and Android devices, an end user can have their existing SIM and associated phone number for personal communications, and the Webex SIM for business communications. For both types of communications, the native mobile device interface is used for making and receiving calls and texts.
Cisco uses a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) for their solution, which means that they don’t have a physical mobile network but instead roam on other service provider’s networks. Like the Microsoft approach, all incoming and outgoing calls and texts are routed from this virtual roaming network to the Webex cloud. But unlike Microsoft, the MVNO already has the inter-connects done making support for new countries fast and easy.
So, which approach is better? Well, like anything, there is good and bad with each approach.
The Microsoft approach is simple, just leveraging the existing capabilities of a mobile service provider. The only difference is the force routing of calls and texts to and from the Teams cloud. Mobile service providers will offer this capability as an add-on to an existing mobile subscription, like how international roaming is supported.
The downside of this approach is the complexity of inter-connecting with a mobile network. While there are (very good) standards for mobile network interoperability, the reality is that no two are alike. Each requires a slightly different approach, which requires engineering work on both the Microsoft and service provider sides. Mobile service providers are very cautious with any changes to their networks. We did a lot of these inter-connects at BroadSoft, and it usually takes anywhere from 9 to 18 months.
The Cisco approach avoids any inter-connectivity directly with a mobile service provider. Instead, they leverage an existing MVNO which has roaming relationships with mobile service providers around the world. You purchase and provision a Webex SIM from Cisco or a Cisco partner, and you’re up and running. With eSIMs, everything can be done over the air, making the initial setup quick and easy.
Sounds easy but hold on – there are always quirks with any solution. Depending on the roaming network, you may have to request that your existing mobile service provider unlock your phone. And depending on your device manufacturer, you may have to manually configure options on your phone. Apple is particularly strict with regards to what comes pre-configured. Since Cisco isn’t really a mobile network service provider, there are going to be some minor issues based on what network you’re roaming on.
I don’t think one approach is better than another, both have their good and bad points. I’m sure both companies will greatly enhance their solutions moving forward, making truly mobile first solutions. I’m particularly excited about the go-to-market for these solutions, as it will open new opportunities and capabilities for both partners and enterprises. Let us know your thoughts on how you view these solutions.
