Bye-bye Buddy List?Bye-bye Buddy List?

Is corporate IM on the way out? That's something I started to wonder a while back as messaging apps of the persistent, rather than instant, variety started to crop up.

At first team collaboration apps were -- and in many cases remain -- ancillary. They're deployed alongside UC clients, which combine voice, video, and IM, to deliver a different kind of app for a different kind of collaboration experience. This confused customers wondering which app to use when, and led to complex diagrams trying to sort things out. Once you got your head around it, the positioning is clear:

This has all been well and good as long as the apps stay separate. But that's not always the case. At least one major UC vendor is in the process of consolidating its messaging apps, with team collaboration winning out over traditional buddy list-driven IM.

To document IM's rise and explain what seems to be its impending fall, I pored over ancient manuscripts that our ancestors called "eZines" -- some dating as far back as 2003 -- because many of the issues that established IM as a workplace technology back in the day are ushering in its replacement today.

Rise of Corporate IM
In 2003, IM was mainly, though not exclusively, a consumer technology. AOL Instant Messenger enjoyed the lion's share, with nearly 60 million users compared with MSN Messenger's 23 million and Yahoo Messenger's 20 million. "Once viewed primarily as a secret language used by teenagers," IM started to wheedle its way into the workplace in early years of the new century.

IM was unfamiliar enough that we resorted to awkward comparisons -- "the digital equivalent of the venerable CB radio" -- to describe it. But for certain pockets of employees "the speed and convenience of instant messaging (IM) has been irresistible," particularly for those needing "to keep in constant contact with remote colleagues."

Spontaneous use of consumer IM clients in the workplace made IT uneasy. CIOs worried that IM provided "little or nothing in the way of security." Corporate attorneys worried about IMs not being archived, and providing unmonitored channels of communications that would lead to legal trouble if, for example, employees utilized "IM messaging to make statements that could later be construed as warranties or public statements subject to securities regulation."

In many cases IT shut down the applications whenever possible, even if blocking IMs was "like playing the arcade game Whack-a-Mole." But IT couldn't deny its usefulness in business settings. Businesses saw IM as "a cutting-edge, productivity-enhancing tool" that was "more versatile than other real-time [communications] alternatives" provided by IT. And at least one company -- forward thinking Avnet Computer Marketing -- had eyed IM "as an email replacement."

Microsoft was by no means first with an IT-friendly alternative to AIM and the rest. As far as I can tell, that distinction goes to IBM, whose Lotus group introduced Sametime way back in 1999. AOL and Yahoo cottoned on and launched short-lived enterprise versions of their consumer IM services in 2002. Microsoft's response was at first scattershot. It made IM a feature in Exchange, folded separate IM technology into Windows XP, introduced a comms API that included IM, and announced a dedicated IM server codenamed Greenwich. Ultimately its strategy focused around Greenwich, subsequently branded Live Communication Server (LCS) and whose "March of Progress" path led directly to Office Communications Server (OCS), OCS R2, Lync, and, finally, Skype for Business.

Though there were (and are) plenty of other apps, LCS thrust corporate IM into the mainstream. Microsoft did this not only by introducing a point product, but by folding it into the Office suite for immediate availability to millions of businesses. And in time Microsoft made IM the centerpiece of its larger UC strategy: The IM server is the corporate telephony platform. If you want the latter, you start with the former.

Click to Page 2: Fall of Corporate IM?

Continued from Page 1

Fall of Corporate IM?
This admittedly selective retelling of corporate IM's genesis highlights many of its similarities to these early days of team collaboration. Like IM back in the day, persistent messaging:

This is to say, many of the factors that spurred the rise of corporate IM apps years ago are working the same magic on team collaboration apps today. And, once again, Microsoft's offering appears to be the clincher.

Microsoft's move to replace tried-and-true Skype for Business Online with new-fangled Teams will not just put a team collaboration app in front of millions of Office 365 users, it will require them to use it for pretty much any type of communication. This is because the Skype for Business client -- with its familiar buddy list metaphor and presence bubbles -- will eventually disappear, at least for folks on Office 365. Teams will be their interface not just for team collaboration and persistent messaging, but all the voice, video, and IM capabilities that Skype for Business currently delivers.

So back to my original question: Is corporate IM on the way out?

For millions of Skype for Business Online users, the app they have long used for IM will certainly disappear. But the ability to send IMs will not. Rather, both chat and presence will roll into the Teams app. At Microsoft Ignite last month I saw an early version of this -- the Teams client with a "chat" button on the left that lets users message each other without the rigmarole of setting up a persistent collaboration workspace. So traditional IM functionality will still be available to Office 365 users. Only it will be in an app with a different look and feel.

The big question is how the rest of the UC vendors will respond to Microsoft's move. Portfolio conformity and copycat product development are hallmarks of the UC industry. When one company has a bright idea -- whether it's IP instead of TDM, software instead of systems, seamless call handoff between desk and mobile phones, session managers, hosted services or communications platform as a service -- the rest are usually not far behind.

But following Microsoft in this particular direction is going to be difficult. This has more to do with business models than technology because, when it comes to team collaboration, Microsoft is playing a different game. For others -- whether we're talking about the developer of a standalone app like Slack, the developer of an ancillary app like Unify, or a developer whose next-gen UCaaS platform hinges on team collaboration like Cisco -- the goal is to make money. And not just make money, but make it via a recurring revenue stream. Team collaboration -- delivered as SaaS and offered in a freemium model -- is a key part of this strategy for many UC vendors.

Not so for Microsoft. Microsoft is already doing great with this recurring revenue stuff, evidenced by Office 365 and Skype for Business Online's massive installed base. The company can afford to "give away" its team collaboration app, since it's goal isn't to make money directly from the app but rather to convert E1 customers to E3 or E5. That's to say, the online application suite, not the team collaboration app itself, is the money maker. This gives Microsoft license to position Teams in whatever way adds the most value to the larger suite.

Other UC vendors don't have this luxury. For them, replacing their corporate IM apps will be difficult, involving significant changes to the way they sell UC software. Until they decide to make those changes, their customers will not be saying bye-bye to their buddy lists.

Learn more about Team Collaboration at Enterprise Connect 2018, March 12 to 15, in Orlando, Fla. Register now using the code NOJITTER to save an additional $200 off the Advance Rate or get a free Expo Plus pass.

Related content:

Follow Brian Riggs on Twitter and Google+!
@brian_riggs
Brian Riggs on Google+