cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
5447
Views
38
Helpful
18
Replies

UC320W - softphone - remote worker

support
Level 1
Level 1

Hello,

Are Cisco still working on a softphone to work with the UC320W, and the options to configure a phone like the SPA525G phone to work externally, or have both these enhancements been completely dropped?  They used to appear on the roadmap for the UC320W which of course is now non-existant.  I keep hoping to see either mentioned as a firmware enhancement but it never happens .

Tony Stewart

18 Replies 18

Alberto Montilla
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Dear Tony;

These features have been part of the roadmap for some time now, however there is no short term plans to commit to incorporate those features on a coming release.

We have other products such as UC500, BE3000 or BE6000 which offer today mobile phone connectivity as well as teleworker.

We appreciate your feedback, please keep it coming.

Regards;

Alberto

Hi Alberto - think there's a lot of us partners out there who have been promised these features and sold units on the back of Cisco's promises, it has put a lot of us in difficult positions and caused a lot of us based on the problems early on with the unit and the lack of features to pull back from selling it. 

I think we've suffered enough of the bugs in CCA to ever consider another UC500 box, which just can't be deployed as quick as competing products and the BE series just aren't good enough to be put out in volume - we're also in the same situation where we're being promised features to go out and sell the units and based on my experiences with the delivery of the UC320 features I have very little confidence that Cisco's word is its bond.

I think a lot of us need to have that confidence re-built - it would be nice to see Cisco concentrate on one product even if it is the baby UC320 and get what needs to be done, then move onto the BE series and do the same.  At the moment we're just getting mixed messages and not inspiring much confidence that if we sell these products based on features coming down the line - that we're not going to be left high and dry by Cisco later when it's attention moves on again.

I think a lot of us recognize the BE needs further work and is the future, but at this stage, I would urge Cisco to finish what it started with the UC320 to give us confidence you'll do the same with BE.

Chris

From a earlier Cisco commment:

"The teleworker and softphone features mentioned in the posting above are  been re-evaluated by the team. There is no commitment yet on these features."

Not getting "warm fuzzies" about Cisco's committment to this product. 

Hello Alberto,

My company is relatively new to telecoms as we are mainly an IT support provider. When we looked in to the phone systems out there we could see a lot of popular lines were coming to end of life, and we wanted to avoid open source products. In our naivety we therefore found the new to market UC320W and liked the look of the simple interface, the “impressive” road map, and felt that Cisco was a good brand to be associated with.

We have sold a number of these UC320W products to our long standing existing clients and are really starting to regret it. To be fair some of our issues have been caused by our VOIP provider but the glitchy nature of the UC320W has seriously damaged our reputation and relationship with some of our clients, with one in particular threatening to “rip out the phone system if there is one more glitch”. Having some of the “features” we were promised in the early days would go a small way to mending some bridges, but it would at least be a step.

I was told early on that this forum was the place to discuss product enhancements, but I don’t feel that “Cisco” are taking the forum seriously, or it could be that these individual posts have no weight. I had considered starting a poll on the web site to see if I am alone in wanting these “enhancements” but feel that it would get a more credible response if you guys started the poll and perhaps sent an email to forum users to prompt them of its existence.

Please understand that I am not having a go at Alberto and the other forum guys and I understand that these decisions are made at a higher level but this forum is our only outlet.

Thank you,

Tony

chidcp999
Level 1
Level 1

I must admit, I also have no confidence in any comments made by Cisco on the future of the UC320.

If you search back through the support forum, we were told by Cisco (I found these comments with a quick search and no doubt there are more examples):

  • Mar 2011 - Mark Monday - I will see what is going on for a SIP PC client and post it in the community when we have a solution.  Should not be to difficult, given our strong implementation of SIP and the number of third party clients out in the market.
  • April 2011 - Albert Navin - we will come out with a wireless phone model that is specifically made for Small business.
  • May 2011 - Jeff Sand - SIP softphone support is being discussed and planned for a future release.
  • Nov 2011 - David Harper - We are working on a softphone for the UC320 but it is still a little way off.
  • Nov 2011 - David Harper - Remote phones (we call it support for teleworkers) is planned for a firmware update in the next few months, though plans are always subject to change.
  • Dec 2011 - Christopher Edgeworth - The UC320W team is actively working on teleworker support and is expected to be available via a feature release mid 2012.
  • Jan 2012 - Christopher Edgeworth - We do plan to support teleworkers in an upcoming feature release.
  • Apr 2012 - Alberto Montilla - We plan to have a solution by fall this year on UC300. (on wireless handsets).

Now it seems, everything is back under review, with no short term commitment.

I'm just a simple end user who decides, buys, installs and maintains my own hardware for a very small home office set up. I keep trying to really like the UC320, but the simple lack of softphone support and these empty remarks made by Cisco, mean I'm seriously thinking of switching out the UC320, for something different - please Cisco, don't just tell me the UC500 does what I want, the cost differential between the UC320 and UC500, makes it a non-starter for a very small home office setup.

I feel very sorry for you Cisco partners who have to try and sell this product, when you cannot rely on comments on future development, on functionality potential customers are asking for.

I really think Cisco need to 'man up' and make some definitive statements on some of the basic questions that keep being asked, that they simply keep stalling on. If they really are not going to implement these features, then at least say so! You cannot have been discussing these features for over 18 months with no definite decision.

Clive

Hi Clive - right behind you on what you say there!  I find it very difficult to be too angry with the likes of Alberto, he did my training on the device and is very passionate about the unit and was even involved with its design.  Unfortunately Cisco is having a major wobble at the moment which for me started around the time they axed the Flip camera division.  The people we deal with in these forums from Cisco are on the whole on our side, unfortunately it's the top of the tree where the problem is.   I think that's why Alberto is pleased for the feedback (without putting too many words in his mouth!).  I feel sorry for them that they have to tow the party line, so to speak.

I can't begin to tell you how extremely thankful I was to Cisco's SMB division a few years ago too - they helped me build a business and asked for nothing in return.  They sent out people to help us, we were given access to their offices and demonstration suites and it wasn't until 18 months later we started paying them back in results.  I'd never seen this type of support from a vendor, we therefore put up with some of the 'undocumented features' of tools such as CCA. We and I am a very loyal Cisco fan because of what they did - they have built up such a high level of goodwill with me, that it seems a shame that it's been slowly eroded over the past year and a half.

The recession caught up with Cisco, they had a massive panic and therefore ran back to their core business, which is the big switching and routing.  The SMB divisions were going great during the recession and we were starting to see the R&D pay off.  Products such as the UC320 and BE3000 landed, but they were unfinished and needed more focus, the job cuts and constant message changes from the top at Cisco have adversely affected the sales of these units for the reasons we've both said.

The SMB division which used to have the UC boxes, the BE and all the associated routing and switching was merged back in with what we used to call 'big Cisco' and whilst this used to cause us problems with different SKU's we could order on for our customers, the end result at the moment is much worse.  Unfortunately the SMB products now have lost their focus and support due to them now being in a big pond competing against the enterprise products for resource and attention.  They will always play second fiddle unless they are given higher weighting.

You've done an excellent sumamry of the promises there - we actually were presented official slides as partners, with the roadmap, there's also a few really nice products and enhancements that were supposed to appear that haven't. 

The UC320 is an excellent product, even if maybe it requires a bit more processing beef.  I think it is really unique and I believe the features that we want are already running under the hood, Cisco just haven't had time to test them and assess their impact on their support load (which I would say is largely the issue).

There could be another option of turning the UC320 over to the community to begin developing and supporting the features that it lacks.

My biggest upset is that I have on the back of what Clive has very nicely pointed out - I have sold on the message I was getting and now my customers think I'm a liar or worse!  I therefore think very much the same of Cisco!

Chris

Hi Chris, thanks for a useful post/insite. I work in IT software development and have worked for/with both very small and very large organizations and I certainly know how difficult it is to get the big corporates to a) make a decision, b) take notice of the invidividual end users.

Unfortunately, end-users really don't care who is behind the decisions, or the size of the company, they simply want prompt, realistic answers to their questions/requests.

You guy's selling these products are the 'Cisco face' that the end user sees, while your 'Cisco face' are the likes of Alberto - the real decision makers, seem to be able to 'hide' behind a big corporate wall. All that this achieves is end-users simply not trusting/relying on what Cisco says - and to them, you are Cisco!

As I say, I want to really like the Cisco SMB products, but your comments lead me to believe that the future could be bleak!

My office is running all Cisco SMB products - I first bought a NSS322 NAS box - this had the same promise of future features/development, which never appeared and after a relatively short time was EOL'd. Fortunately, it is just a rebadged QNAP box and I had switched it to the QNAP firmware, even before Cisco made that an option! In addition to the UC320, I also have an SRP547W, which apart from a cheap noisy fan, is rock solid and the best ADSL modem/router I have used in a small office. But that leaves the UC320 just for handling the phones and there are more flexible solutions out there, with remote office support and softphone/iphone clients.

I hope I'm wrong, but I just get the feeling that an EOL announcement could be around the corner for the UC320.

Clive

Hi Clive - I remember seeing those NAS boxes reviewed in PC Pro and did wonder whether the firmware was interchangeable, pleased for you that it was!  Again that would have been a good product if it had a bit more development umph behind it.  We use the SRP's internally, for the price it's one of the most flexible modem/routers of its kind.  We also once did a cool deployment of a multi-site set-up for a UC500 series box and each remote office had a SRP on it and a SPA telephone, they're quite flexible in what you can do.  The products can be great, just want more of them and more updates!

I'd hope if you're right that a replacement is on its way, I don't believe that the SPA phones are supported on the BE platform (it was another on again, off again set of promises for us on that) - therefore other than in the hosted VoIP market and on the UC500's which is a substantially older product there won't be any systems supporting them. 

In Cisco's defence I don't think any firm decisions have taken place yet, hence me wanting to start a debate!

Microsoft and Cisco seem to be big on cloud solutions for everything these days, hosted everything - unfortunately in the places a lot of clients are in the UK, the ADSL and other broadband is just not up to the job. 

Chris

aleestma56mz
Level 1
Level 1

I'm becoming increasing dis-illusioned with Cisco all-together.   Frankly, I don't think they give a shit.

We had UC500's installed in six of our offices.  We paid an insane amount for a company to come in and install all of them.  The deployment was so bad, and created so many headaches and so many bills from our vendor that after 2 years, I yanked all of the UC500's out and replaced them (myself) with UC300's.  This allowed me to administer them, and eliminated all of the billable hours we were incurring. 

I have one office that is on an extreamely basic phone system. Ya know what?  I have fewer issues with that one than anywhere else and as far as features go, without teleworker or softphone support I have to consider why the hell I'm messing with Cisco shit at all.

I continue to wait for Tele-worker support.  I continue to wait for Softphone.  I have 5 UC500's for sale, and soon I'll probably have 6 UC300's.

Total PITA....

How much do you want for one of your UC500's?

Regards,

Paul.

They're going for about $1100 on ebay, so I think that's kinda where I'm at. 

As an aside, the owner of the companies is so pissed that he spent 20k on each deployment and is only able to get 1k back that he'd almost prefer to just literally watch them burn.  I can't say i blame him...

I also have some POE switches and some 7940 series phones. PM me for more info...

pingme2day
Level 1
Level 1

The silence from Cisco on this thread is "deafening". 

Exactly why I stopped deploying these boxes. I had to backpeddle too damn much defending the plan of record....clearly there is no plan.

I'm down to one office running one UC320W and unless some progress is made, I wont recommend it anymore. I question the comittment to the platform.

Interested to know if you have a better alternative from another vendor?