more responses to response point

Have Microsoft really grasped the telephony nettle?

Bloody hell I was looking forward to this, despite assurances from people on the inside of unified comm’s in Microsoft that they never planned a phone system,  since their acquisition of Media streams for their ePhone and Teleo I knew it was just a matter of time.

Now I’ve sat through the somewhat embarrassing response point Webcast with XD (Xuedong Huang)  and friends and frankly I’m underwhelmed.

There seems to be huge excitement in the Microsoft world about many features I’ve come to expect  in the telephony world since time immemorial,  but  they’re newbies so I’ll let them get excited.

Sorry to be dismissive but Response Point is simply a voice activated PBX with familiar proprietary hardpoint terminals

Yes voice activation is very geek chic but frankly if people don’t use the features it’s not really that they find them awkward to access it’s really that they don’t recognise their value and can’t be bothered to access them.  Making features voice accessible doesn’t help you need to tell the users that the features are there.  Avaya’s  INDeX  ( god rest it’s soul ) led the way with a context sensitive display that prompted users with appropriate features.  The system copes with accents but I wonder how well it would cope in an open plan office?

Yes it’s got an easy to use GUI based management suite ( they all have) yes it integrates with outlook (ditto) yes it’s got auto discovery feature for phones (tick), it screen pops (err?), there’s an auto attendant (wow), voicemail to email (I’ll stop now).   There’s really nothing to commend it over  current small office offerings by Mitel and Avaya, they must have been quaking in their boots but I guess you’ll have heard the biggest sigh of relief if you were hanging around Avaya central.

highpoints

up to 100 endpoints without sneezing and without the FD coughing (I’d hope, but remember those proprietary handsets)  

voice activation … has massive geek and tech company appeal 

two click backup and restore, a nice touch but the fact it’s listed will lead to questions about stability

it’s just Microsoft

lowpoints:

No OCS or Exchange integration – WHAT!!!! you are kidding right?  unfortunately not…. this is a major own goal… response point should absolutely be a branch solution for OCS ….. maybe antitrust paranoia?

Official line it’s for a different market sector … blah blah blah …….. we’ve spent years thinking about advanced applications for voice solutions  and now the application company hits the market with an application compromised telephone system. Every other PABX vendor pushes the big company features for a small company message why aren’t Microsoft?

NO software only version – seriously.. why do you need  hardware and response point optimised phones, surely you can write the ease of integration into SIP software clients?

IMHO it’s about time Microsoft stopped being all coy with hardware vendors they don’t need their help (Ok maybe they do to get buy in from customers initially), get the product out there and let people provide specialised appliances based on it if need be. The Asterisk model should have been a clue.

It’s tied to hardware vendors, (see above)  and the US ones are the wrong ones for a global product.  I’ve never seen anyone buy a dlink or quanta PBX in EMEA, I’ve seen Uniden in the distant past but I’m hoping a Panasonic, Toshiba or Samsung emerges for the EMEA market?

no points:

Seen it all before actually,  thanks for coming peeps…. a bit shocked that Bill deigned to lower himself to promote this.

Where’s the homeworking and flexible working capability? imagine this, OCS or LCS SBS and exchange 2007 for the small business, maybe even mobile twinning that would be a really powerful tool for a smaller enterprise.

It must at least be able to act as a Microsoft gateway for unified comm’s,  please say it will.

summary:

Response Point has missed the point, as an adjunct to OCS it could rip the telephony world apart as a standalone, it’s just another telephone system but with a huge amount  of catching up to do.

Advertisements

10 Responses to more responses to response point

  1. The whole point of Response Point is to introduce speech recognition as the primary user interface, and to deprecate the TUI. As long as the TUI exists Microsoft remains at a competitive disadvantage to the incumbents, as a TUI cannot be replicated within a Windows PC environment. This is an opportunity to educate the market and make it familiar with what Microsoft sees as the new paradigm. It will be impossible to totally deprecate and commoditize telephony endpoints until this happens. Note that Office Communications Server is not TUI-friendly as well and includes the former Microsoft Speech Server.

  2. fanatical says:

    thanks for the comment Michael, I’m a brit so I look at things from a UK perspective some of this may change when Microsoft choose to release Response Point over here.

    I’m not sure I agree that the TUI (telephone user inteface for the uninitiated, think a GUI with only 12 options) can’t be replicated in a windows environment, there’s any number of softphones out there that allow you to do that, in fact all of the telephony big boys, Avaya, Nortel, Siemens et al have the TUI right there on your desktop in a softphone ok you’re using your mouse not your finger to press the buttons.

    Based on what I’ve seen response point still relies on the TUI for basic communications, you’ll still be dialling numbers ( at least those that aren’t in your PIM) and in the UK at least most customer interactive systems still rely on good old DTMF which is TUI reliant.

    Again in the UK there’s a perception that VUI (voice user interface) based systems are unreliable, there are plenty of devices that use voice activation but the adoption is pretty sparse:

    With Mobiles most if not all of the people I know have access to voice dialling, however I know a handful of people that actually use it (I’m one of them by the way, I have a great story about my dog barking in the background, initiating a call to the vets)

    IVR (interactive voice response) is getting more commonplace in the UK however nearly everyone I know curses it and tries as hard as they can to circumvent it ( the early systems were insufferably complex and rarely worked)

    We tend not to have cubes over here, our open plan tends to be open plan and I guarantee that the response point VUI experience will be vastly different and probably really frustrating in that environment.

    Making the main way you communicate with your telephone system reliant on this is a big mistake, it’ll appeal to geeks and techheads but most users and traditional telephony people won’t be convinced.

    SIP has started the commoditisation of endpoints (even some of the traditional UK telephony manufacturers have started producing proprietary endpoints that are sub £50, but the idea that you could use office communicator with a £30 SIP handset and Response point on your server would have stolen the march in the opposition.

    I like Asterisk as an application in this environment however it’s daunting and over jargonised for the average user, Microsoft should have taken this model and Windowified it – they seem to have management right in Response Point as the configuration tool seems very user approachable.

    I think Microsoft tying themselves to specific manufacturers hardware is really shortsighted, they had a real chance to drive change in the market place, a real chance to provide the small enterprise with a great tool.

    This is also why I wanted OCS / LCS / Exchange 2007 integration, most of the competitor offerings in the UK offer this so the fact that Microsoft’s solution doesn’t is absolutely mistifying to me.

    As you suggest OCS and speech server are more VUI than TUI so as us brits slowly become tolerant of this technology Response Point could have been there to mop up but as it stands why would I buy Response Point over other more established vendors that actually offer better functionality with Microsoft’s server backend.

  3. I doubt they were given an opportunity to ship software given how things work within Microsoft. Any software would compete internally with OCS and I doubt that would be permitted. It would have been killed and put in the OCS product queue five years down the line based on product roadmap priorities, and only if it brings in or maintains revenues. This is don’t-get-out-of-bed-for-less-than-$500-Million territory.

    The Response Point product is designed to work in offices that don’t have any IT infrastructure. That is how they could ship while passing political muster as there was no account competition or channel confusion. If there was a goal to ship and test the Voice Recognition hypothesis a broader enthusiast market that carries not much risk is the best place to do it. Response point is a social experiment with focus groups that pay to get in.

    As it stands OCS is too difficult and cumbersome to deploy in anything but the largest enterprises with the largest customization budgets. This is intentional. The goals for OCS are to capture and hold the largest accounts on all aspects of IT using complex specific deployments that can keep the Oracles and WebSpheres out. Microsoft is building a communications ecosystem that migrates enterprises towards Microsoft Dynamics et al. in their largest accounts, and insures that Exchange, SQL, Longhorn Server sticks around and doesn’t go away. A product that meets your goals is in conflict with a product that meets the goals above.

    Remember that the biggest source of revenue from the big guys is maintenance of licenses that were largely discounted to nothing to begin with, and professional services for customization. The likes of EDS will not sell it if they can’t bill for it.

    Big companies don’t buy software, they perpetually lease it and then customize it all to hell because they can.

    OCS is as much a product that targets Oracle as it is one that targets Avaya.

    In fact more so as Oracle is far more of a threat to Microsoft in the Unified Communications environment than Avaya could ever hope to be as Avaya does not have an ecosystem to draw upon. The only way that Avaya could compete is if was acquired by IBM, which is not unlikely given how Avaya is aligning its product development to look like WebSphere, and why Avaya is turning into a professional services company that uses Websphere to augment its own product.

    The biggest loser in this game might be SAP, which unlike the others does not have a communications software ecosystem, and it’s favorite partner IBM is rapidly building competing software that makes SAP a legacy vendor.

    OCS is a Fortune 500 product. It has nothing to do with phones. It has everything to do with account retention, data center account control and ownership of the professional services API in large organizations. Once you realize that Microsoft is a mainframe vendor selling a data center server stack to the Fortune 500 everything starts to make sense. Even their homepage is IBM blue. The tight focused company that cleaned Novell’s clock with an easy to use mid market products is a distant memory.

    Back in 1995 Windows NT and Exchange Server were just that, they cleaned Novell’s clock. Novell was once scary too, funny as that sounds. Novell 4.0 killed that by being too hard to use by the little guy. The people that ran that show are rich retired and long gone. Microsoft is a big company that sells to other big companies, and thinks of big company needs first. They make decisions based on talking with the CIO of Boeing and VP of sales for EDS, not the guy who runs a school board, and they are making a lot of the same decisions regarding complexity that ultimately brought down IBM and Novell. They have forgotten the little guy. Hell, they have forgotten the kinda big guy. You have to be really big for Microsoft to notice.

    I’m the strategist that got my employer Objectworld to develop UC Server, which is largely what you are asking for. It works with OCS, it works with Exchange 2007 UM, and it leverages Active Directory to do so automatically rather than through a hack LDAP integration. Here is a real world case study for a midmarket enterprise account but UC Server scales down to a 10 user office:

    http://www.objectworld.com/products/casestudies/pembinatrails/index.php

    UC server targets what used to be Microsoft’s sweet spot, the one that clobbered Novell out of existence, the mid market enterprise run by Certified Microsoft Engineers that need a point-and-click wizard interface, not a Master’s degree in programming SALT/VoiceXML, or charges $2000 per day professional services.

    The environment that Microsoft targets, we leave that to them, and we help them maintain it by offering solutions where we clean up the edges. We are not fools. The same is true for any enterprise vendor that works with us, for we target the mid-market enterprise on down to the SME with stuff that is actually for phones not accounts. That leaves us a lot of ground to cover, a multi billion dollar market worldwide that all the bigs are ignoring, not just Microsoft.

    None of the incumbents make anything for the mid market and SME, and when they do so, like Microsoft did with Small Business Server, it’s only when they are truly forced to act and kill off a threat.

    It takes a lot of balls to go and build something that at first glance competes with the world’s biggest software company, even when it doesn’t. The best way to do it is to have a long memory and remember strengths and weaknesses and focus on a strong vision, executing where others aren’t.

  4. The TUI does not translate well to the PC. Bill Gates himself has said so time and time again for fifteen plus years and I agree. Every PC softphone out there has a horrible UI, save for Skype’s appropriately minimalistic UI, which hides its TUI whenever possible, which is really all about putting a bag on the head of a very ugly PC interface. There is no way that Microsoft can take advantage of the TUI, and given how they do things at Microsoft, if they can’t take total advantage of it it must be eliminated.

    The TUI works well on hardware phones, as well as any small numeric interface could ever work. It took Bell Labs 50 years to figure that one out and they got it as right as possible given the circumstances. As long as the TUI is more effective than speech recognition the likes of Cisco, Avaya, the carriers and handset manufacturers like Nokia have something that Microsoft cannot take away. If I was CTO of Nokia I’d be busting the noggins of my best people to make sure that the TUI remains so useful and so indispensable that it never goes away. The kids who are SMS thumbing pros are likely a greater obstacle to Microsoft in the long term than Avaya is as they don’t give a shit about paradigms, they can SMS faster than they can talk, and they have no patience for voice recognition that can’t handle crack-addict rapid-fire talk perfectly. If Microsoft can’t get them to prefer speech recognition it leaves the door open to others that serves their needs better.

  5. fanatical says:

    Pardon my ignorance Michael however I’d not heard of UC server until you declared your interest, a quick scan seems to point to limited presence in the UK at the moment; however you’re right it does seem to hit that sweet spot, and does appear to do what I wanted Response Point to do. I’ll keep an eye on UC’s progress

    I’m also with you on the way that the traditional voice vendors cobble together their Microsoft integration, LDAP is a fudge and this is why I’m frustrated that Microsoft haven’t firmly embedded Response Point within their SME portfolio.

    I work for a Gold Partner in the UK (name withheld to protect the innocent – you kind see why elsewhere on my blog) and we have a customer list that spans FT100 companies at the top end right down to Fred in a shed , a good proportion of our customers have between 30 and 150 employees.

    You’d probably be surprised at how many of the smaller companies we deal with have shrugged off SBS and gone for a multi server approach and how many are interested in LCS / OCS and what it can offer, RP (getting tired of typing it) should have done what UC does, it could have, probably not as well but it would have Microsoft on the lid and plenty of customers would have bought it just because of that.

    There’s history here with plenty of products that Microsoft do well or adequately but others do as well or better and yet customers go with the Microsoft flow because they perceive a single vendor will reduce complexity (we know this doesn’t necessarily follow but this is how we make our money), customers are certainly looking for a single support provider. RP offers us incremental revenue in terms of capital, consultancy and annuities

    We all also know that frankly no one gets sacked for buying Microsoft

    RP is definitely not an EDS product, it’s a small business solution but according to the office of national statistics 99.9% of UK businesses have less than 250 employees and 99.3% have less than 49, there’s a vibrant partner community providing solutions to this marketplace. Microsoft don’t have to intimately understand this market place as their partners absolutely do, they just need to provide us with tools that scale up and down as needed.

    RP would have been ideal as a bolt on to a Microsoft infrastructure in the same way that Cisco Call Manager is a bolt on to your Cisco core switching platform.
    Flexible working is gaining momentum here, there are plenty of large enterprises that have pushed their workforce out into the wide world, however the adoption of these practices is gaining momentum in the small business market place and business agility can have a more significant effect on the bottom line here, RP should provide support for this, and equally should be a small office solution for a larger estate.

    It could even have been delivered as a Microsoft appliance / application as part of Centro. (It might yet.)

    In the UK RP will compete with established systems like the Avaya IP Office, Mitel 3300, Nortel BCM, call manager express, hosted VoIP and growing systems like the Splicecom Maximiser it’s not battling with Meridian or Communications Manager and at the moment in my opinion it will lose out to the competition, with the right salesman and a not too cautious buyer it would lose out to UC server.

    From Objectworld’s perspective Microsoft have done just what you wanted them to, generate debate about integrated / novel solutions and yet not deliver one. Being pragmatic Microsoft will eventually carve out a significant chunk of the small business market in telephony there’s always going to be some room for other vendors, it’ll be a crowded market however the good news for you is that Objectworld and UC server and should be in a better position than the traditional telephony players.

    The company I work for are not a telephony house we sell voice as part of a wider solution, we deploy Cisco, Avaya and Mitel solutions for differing reasons, some historical. I won’t need to battle the board to be allowed to provide a Microsoft Voice solution as it will be seen as a natural extension to our portfolio this will be the case for many smaller IT companies as well. So when Microsoft brings RP to the UK It’ll be a solution I’ll be able to sell it I just wish the solution was a better one.

    I suppose I can hang on for SP1 :)

    Your follow up is right too, which is why I think Microsoft are mistaken in hanging their hat on what is essentially a gimmick, (see my post about comfortable communication, when my kid sister hits work in a few years will not want to talk to anyone, she’ll be demanding IM) she’ll have to use the phone because people of my generation will still be in her workspace ;) Microsoft would have spent their time better improving integration.

    Every softphone I’ve been exposed to does have a horrendous UI, they try and clutter the interface with all those features that no one ever uses, those that are the best are ones that offer a toolbar or slim client view that has just the TUI, or hides it until you click on the client. Touch screen technology might improve this, making the act of dialling more like dialling

    I’ll be intrigued to see the effect of the hyperbole surrounding iPhone on the TUI’s status and if the Google cellphone is a reality not a pipedream how they tackle the Man Network Interface.

  6. “You’d probably be surprised at how many of the smaller companies we deal with have shrugged off SBS and gone for a multi server approach and how many are interested in LCS / OCS and what it can offer, RP (getting tired of typing it) should have done what UC does, it could have, probably not as well but it would have Microsoft on the lid and plenty of customers would have bought it just because of that.”

    Probably not shocked at all, as most of our smalls have separate servers as well.

    What we do see however is a throw-up-the-hands frustration with incomplete offerings.

    I’m not sure that OCS will cover the requirements for your customers as there is no automated deployment of sets, no attendant console, no easy way to replicate existing telephony services and non of the thousand or so other things that the incumbents already provide like paging through sets, E911, stuff that people want and need to have and don’t want to lose because the new stuff doesn’t have it.

    That is not the intent of OCS, at least not obviously other it would be there.

    That is where we come in. We do all that nasty crap that nobody else including Microsoft wants to do, and we productize it to make it affordable and automated so nobody has to worry about it ever again.

    OCS is a great platform for developing communications applications that need to be implemented in custom software. It is not a specialized telephony system that automates and integrates expected telephony functionality as software unless you throw time and effort into it. It is far more cost effective to buy telephony software like ours for telephony purposes and leave the $2000 per day platform work to the likes of OCS. Why spend that money replicating productized functionality when you can buy the whole shebang and point and click for $200 per user? You can’t tell a customer that ‘you don’t need that’ when they already have that and are using it.

    The last person you piss off is the receptionist.

    Integrating with Exchange 2007 email messaging and UM? Automatic. Integrating with Active Directory? Automatic. Deployment of phones? Automatic. Deployment of gateways and service providers? Automatic. This allows people to spend their dollars wisely which is on applications that enhance business processes.

    We have a service environment that is GUI based that builds powerful applications that access any ODBC source.

    Anybody that knows how to use VISIO can develop an application via point and click. If that is not powerful enough our environment can tie into OCS based applications via .NET. So it’s all mix and match. The application that reads an Access, Foxpro, Excel or SQL dataset via ODBC, something done by a Microsoft administrator, a non-programmer? Our environment. An extensive SOA app that ties together a billion data sources and has a myriad of outputs and has special custom rules and policies that are not covered by our system? OCS is fine for that.

    Better yet our stuff can invoke that stuff, and vice versa.

    The result is that the likes of your firm can maximize billable hours on real value add services not the nuts and bolts basics. That in the long run is how reality-based deployments will happen.

    “RP will compete with established systems like the Avaya IP Office, Mitel 3300, Nortel BCM, call manager express, hosted VoIP and growing systems like the Splicecom Maximiser it’s not battling with Meridian or Communications Manager and at the moment in my opinion it will lose out to the competition.”

    I doubt it is targeted there at all. It it targeted at LinkSys et al. The others have features that make them fully fleshed out systems.

    “With the right salesman and a not too cautious buyer it would lose out to UC server.”

    Only at the very low end can RP be considered competition as it is standalone. Again it is a competitor to Linksys et al. Objectworld has product, Call Attendant Office that wraps around IP Office, BCM, Mitel 3300. It is almost always cheaper for the customer to resell the old switch on the grey market and go buy UC Server, but the customer has the choice. We support a transition strategy that allows a person to mix and match their old PBX and UC Server based unifed communications, migrating away at their own pace or keeping the old PBX until it dies. To do so our product has to cover the bases covered by the existing PBX, from paging to console to the other features. We’ve done the hard work covering the bases that OCS will not ever cover.

    The biggest problem we face of course is brand, we are unknown. Any brand selling our software would get between 50x-1000x the sales volume, depending on who it is, right away. Creating brand is tough, the result is that you are either build it expensively, get bought by it or buy it.

    Given the losses and troubles seen by some of the brands in the business it might be easier for my employer to buy brand at a penny on the dollar than build it.

  7. fanatical says:

    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on RP’s competitors (remember I’m talking exclusively about the UK market here) , RP will absolutely have to compete with Avaya IPO, Mitel and BCM, Panasonic, Toshiba and Samsung et al . if (when) Microsoft launch RP in Europe (no I’m not jealous as the valiant anonymous poster on your blog suggests ) RP will have to go after the 10 to 100 endpoint market space, there’s no point in going after Linksys’s market share as it’s infinitesimal in VoIP telephony systems in the UK and here Linksys are firmly seated as a home use product.

    As it stands RP lacks any applications, lacks the integration with it’s manufacturers core platform and if it came to the UK init’s current state is going to be dead in the water.

    Interestingly your upgrade by stealth transition strategy is exactly what Mitel are promoting with their 3300 series they have provided the fullest interworking with a range of legacy systems and are doing very well out of it

    You’re absolutely right that the biggest problems that UC and products like UC have in the UK is brand, the tenet that no one gets sacked for buying Microsoft or Cisco or BT is very true here and a good proportion of telephony / ICT people are worryingly conservative, it’s difficult to get a foothold over here.

    as I said it’ll be really easy for me to encourage my board to adopt RP into our portfolio as the brand will crowbar the product in nicely, if I went with the same proposition based on UC I’d have a much harder time justifying it, this will be replicated across the Partner community in the UK which has had some pain with other vendors PBXs but need to offer voice. I just wish RP was a better product.

    Hopefully you’ll carve out a niche for yourselves either that or Microsoft might get wise and make a bid :)

    your product seems to beat RP hands down but I suspect that the inevitable SP1 & SP2 of RP and RP v2 will narrow the gulf, Microsoft have a habit of looking at the opposition and successfully implementing a passable approximation of their most attractive features. it might not be as good but it’s got Microsoft on the lid unfortunately this will be enough for plenty of people.

  8. I agree with that scenario. But it is a $40B worldwide market. Even if it shrunk to $10B it is still pretty damn big.

    There are the following outcomes:

    1. We are completely crushed like bugs. Having once worked for a bunch of frauds (Google my name and “Fast Company” for more, or even better my name and “Class Action” and “California”) I’d rather go down fighting on my own merits, thank you.
    We’re scrappers and that is not bloody likely especially with what we have got planned down the line.

    2. We are not quite crushed but have moderate success. Could be a lot worse.
    WordPerfect is pulling in lots and lots of cash for limited investment. This only happens if the stuff actually works. Our stuff actually works. It’s a lot easier if you DON’T raise too much capital and do the job on a lean investment.

    3. We are bought by Microsoft to help them execute on their long-term goals.
    As you admit we are very good at doing that in the segment you target. Given UC under a Microsoft brand, would you have any hesitation bringing it in?

    4. We are bought by an incumbent to make them survive in a software world and to eliminate any advantage that OCS has in the network. We can do that too if need be.
    Given UC under an incumbent brand, again, any hesitation?

    5. We are bought by a 3rd party brand like Adobe or WordPerfect that needs to enter the game. Not unlikely. Believe me, all application vendors with any reach are entering the game and Microsoft is their competition. Again, if if was under the Adobe brand, would it be different?

    6. We take over a bankrupt incumbent brand and build on that with real product. This may happen sooner than anyone thinks given certain branded PBX incumbents. Given the amount of private capital out there this is far easier than brand-building or going public naturally.

  9. fanatical says:

    I think 1 is unlikely considering your history and your fighting spirit does you credit and I’ll be interested to see where Objectworld can take UC

    2 is very likely and avoiding VC can be good if you can survive in the lean years, you can make a really good living with a moderate chunk of a huge market, there is plenty of room on the periphery in the UK market, UC could clean up without bothering the big boys, more llikely is that outcome 4 would come to pass, I’ve seen it with Network Alchemy > SDX INDeX > Avaya where the big boys absorbed the competition big fish eaten by a biger global fish.

    3 UC with microsoft on the lid, no problem, for all the reasons I’ve said before. the added benfit that our data engineers would also be less inclined to worry about it being scary voice :) I suspect customers would be warmed to it certainly the nervous IT professionals that have had voice and other alien apps foisted upon them.

    4 would depend on the incumbent, the risk is the newly absorbed product gets twisted or sidelined as an app to support sales of the hardware platform. I’d like to see hardware banished from the argument. ( I think you’ve probably been here before)

    5 again in the UK it’s very difficult to establish a reputation, even brands that have a related pedigree (I’m thinking 3Com) struggle to get recognition, I think a ram raid by a company not usually associated with comms would fail, unless it was a logical comms adjunct to an established desktop app, looking at my desktop for good or ill they’re mostly Microsoft.

    6 is a possibility but there’s a fair bit of scepticism about phoenix brands over here I can’t think of a success story at the moment.

  10. Chris Bangs says:

    I agree about the OCS and Exchange point, but as for the rest of it. Jeeze man, whats going on here? Microsoft Response Point is a great system and works VERY well. It does what it does and with ease of use and low cost. The Microsoft Response Point solution is a business owners dream. No longer is the administation of a phone system the guarded secret held hostage by the $100/hour man behind the consultant curtain, or the broken English help desk guy “Larry” somewhere in Tibet. Yes, Microsoft Response Point brings the goods, and right out of the Gate(s). Expect this low priced beast to sweep the market while features improve and the competition scrambles to keep up.

    Chris Bangs

%d bloggers like this: