Dogus Yalman wrote:
I have just purchased UC320W with 5x SPA 303 Phones
I just saw these comments and it put me off a bit.
Does UC320W have a client for Android and iPhone ?
I want to give a remote extesion to a cell phone via Internet only.
Is it a supported feature ?
I think pretty much the product will be dropped and EOL'd over the next 12 months or so. I don't think the Cisco people actually know themselves, but given it's received no firmware updates in what seems like a lifetime and the features promised two years ago when the product launched haven't transpired you can take it as read that their attentions are elsewhere. My advice to anyone is to steer clear of this unit - until you see a Cisco employee on this forum publishing a roadmap you have no idea of it's future. I completely agree with John Hoyt - a little money could have made this product have a happy future - now you see the amount of Asterisk appliances being developed by other vendors it's clear Cisco have lost the edge.
I would argue that the never had "the edge" with Asterisk or any other SMB voice platform. The entire catalog of products (for that matter most any of the "SMB" products) have been poster children for Cisco's ham-fisted floundering in the SMB market.
RE: no firmware updates in what seems like a lifetime:
Even when the developers were in full stride, updates were few and far between at best.
Throwing money at this platform would not have helped. It was a disaster from the onset.
I'm in the process of installing a UC320 now and I have to say that it's very straight forward to get configured and it has so much potential to improve. I really hope that Cisco bring out a smart phone app, teleworker feature, a good cordless phone (no work arounds!) and make the WAN issue simpler. with this, it would be almost perfect for me and my clients.
Until then, we can only pitch this system to clients who have very basic requirements.
It's a good product, it just needs a little cisco love!
Nobody said that it wasn't straight forward. If you actually take the time to read the "open letter" and the followup comments, you will find that the issues have more to do with overall system stability, the lack of promissed and industry common features, and the fact that upates were slow at best, even in the prime of the product development.
Respectfully, your post blindly ignores the context of this thread (hell this entire forum), AND the fact that this product has had almost zero development in over a year.... You are asking for features that are never going to appear, and even if they do, the platform is far from stable or usable in any reasonable deploymnet, compared to any other competing platform. It is a steaming hunk of crap that no amount of Cisco love will ever be able to fix.
THe big question is, given the current state of this project and its history (painted all over this forum) who in the world talked you into selling the platform to a customer? Wow....
Thanks for your courteous and respectful reply. My comment above has alluded to the fact that this product is under developed and has it's limitations. Infact, i've been selling UC320's to customers for over a year, my clients are happy, and the installations have been profitable.
I was one of the first posters in this thread over a year ago and know it's weaknesses and limitations well.
It's not a perfect product, it needs development but in my opinion it's not a bad product and i'll continue to sell it to clients that I know their requirements will be met.
If I had the problems that you have faced with your UC320 installs, it'd have walked away form Cisco and gone elsewhere. There are plenty of alternative products. Why are you still wasting your time on it?
All the best, Paul.
I just wanted to thank you and everyone else in the thread for posting about these WAN problems. I have spent way too many hours trying to make this thing work, and now I see that I really can't, the way I want it to work. I've used several phone systems before, and while this one works very nicely, this is a real problem for us. Why can't the thing just be content being a node on a network? Why does it have to be in control?
Anyway, I learned here how to get the time set, so that's done, and my WAN port remains empty.
Now, if only there was a way to get VMs to email without it, I'd be closer to finished.
I just finished installing a UC320 at my company, and I have to say we are quite pleased with its operation so far. We were upgrading from a 20 year old PBX that had all the functionality of cans and string. We've had the UC320 up and running for about a month now with few problems. We are using it in combination with a SPA 8800 gateway for our 8 FXO lines and also to power analog extensions in our production area. We have 16 SPA303 in the offices.
The only issue that I have had was getting the unit setup as a network appliance. We are currently running it with the WAN port unplugged. The only issue I had was setting the system time, but that was easily fixed via the phone interface. Once I got the system up and running and some initial call flow bugs worked out, it is very easy to maintain. The AA works great we have one primary menu that then feeds into three department submenus.
That said, not many SMBs have their own dedicated IT guy to fix little hiccups. Something that may take me a few seconds to fix may translate into hours when an SMB has to call an IT company for support. Our old PBX may have lacked some of the functionality of newer systems, but the thing was a tank.
One feature that is missing from virtually every sytem I looked at prior to buying the UC320 is the ability to do a hook flash. That would be a much more effient way to transfer calls to outside lines.