In this scenario we as the platform provider has to focus on usability and ensure adoption. The success of this would be when multiple people can adopt the platform and if they adopt it the value gets enhanced. If it is just too hard to use, and video has been in that category, it won't gain the take up and benefit that is required.
A lot of time building systems is about identifying the types of users and services that each user would require. For example, an executive not bound to one location may need to bring groups of people into a situation and might like the room experience, versus a team member who is desk based and may come into a meeting room to do some collaboration. You have to build around those personas and the different types of services to clusters of people in the organisation, and build it into a strategy, enable support and other potential investments that need to be made.
Q: How has your licensing patterns changed in the recent past?
GD: In terms of licensing, the model we are moving to is not dissimilar to a mobile plan. If we are going to deliver video we have to move away from infrastructure and have it inside an organisation, where what device you attach becomes irrelevant to the service. The way it works from our side is that we provide a bridging capability provisioned through various mechanisms. It could be through your premise with some capital expenditure, or it could be managed in someone else's datacentre, or you buy a plan with number of hours, paying for number of minutes or ports on the bridge, or the utilisation of a port for a period of time.
Then there is the cloud model where you can expand and pay for more as you go.
On the client side, we have a free of charge piece of software that goes into tables and Apple products. And then we are delivering a piece of software that wraps a browser-based interface into that bridge, so you don't need a particular client. This is about capacity on bridging infrastructure that drives the number of people who can attach. The client could come into the bridge with any device and there is no increase in licensing. It is about capacity for the inter connect at the backend.
There are customers now saying I have Lync on the desktop, tablet and phone and do I need a Polycom interface? We are saying no. If you got Lync there, then just use that to get into the bridge. It is about simplification for the user. What we need to ensure for adoption is reduce complexity. Our historic boundaries include different user experiences dependent on the scenario that you are in. Where we are going - and we are not totally there - is there will be a consistent experience regardless of the environment. You would interface in a room as you would on a tablet.
Sign up for CIO Asia eNewsletters.