What is your client strategy?

By Tsahi Levent-Levi

Whenever I visit customers in Asia Pacific, it always amazes me how different companies that are developing the same product can go about it in so many different ways. OK, maybe not exactly the same product. One handset weighs in at 170 grams and their competitor’s handset at 164 grams. One handset could also have a metallic color, and the other shiny gray. Go figure.

In trying to understand this phenomenon, I came to the conclusion that all these different approaches are a result of a fundamental difference in R&D philosophy.

Let’s assume you are a developer, and you have been given the daunting task of developing a mobile handset. And YES; it should be an IMS handset. The applications you need to support promise you a major headache:

- VoIP calls (audio and video)

- Presence

- IM (Instant Messaging)

- VS (Video Sharing)

- VCC (Voice Call Continuity)

By the time you’re finished, you assume the whole world speaks in “acronym”…

And now for the 50 million dollar question: How would you approach this development task?

Rest assured I won’t let you think too much while reading this post. Take it from me… I’ve seen primarily two kinds of companies – the “top down” kind and the “bottom up” kind.

Essentially, if you need to build an IMS client (that’s a mobile phone that does IP), first and foremost you need a solid SIP IMS implementation. Not your average-Joe “IMS-ready” or “IMS-lite” one. You also need engines for all those fun applications that will enable you to do VoIP calls, presence, etc. And to top it off, you need a user interface that can be stitched into Windows Mobile, Symbian or whatever operating system you’re using.

Illustrating it in a diagram, you get the following result. If you are one of those “bottom up” companies, then you believe that infrastructure is the key. You search for the right SIP stack, with all those nasty IMS extensions. You make sure your RTP implementation can handle all those necessary bandwidth and retransmissions for IMS. And you select a good codec vendor that can deliver on the promise of encoding H.264 in CIF resolution using only 80 MIPS (I wish…). Once you have that part figured out, the next step is to look for the engines you need to build your applications!

If you are one of those “top down” companies, you believe that the world is a set of applications you can mix and match… and all is well in the land of computing. You see SIP, RTP and those codecs as commodities. And for you, IMS is just another one of those things that you’ll figure out in the future. So out you go to seek your fortune in the market. You find a slick brochure of engines and applications, and choose what looks nicest. Presto! You have a really cool demo application running that really works. Until you look under the hood or try to plug it into a real network with other users.

In case you haven’t figured it out, I tend to side with the “bottom up” guys. I’ve seen too many projects leave the gate and start out running too fast… just to find out (pretty soon) that they were heading in the wrong direction. And now they are left with a lot of catching up to do.

What kind of company do you work for?

Until video becomes personal

By Anatoli Levine

When you are at such an exciting technology conference as VON is, of course the desire is to see and hear every talk – and of course, it doesn’t work like this, especially considering RADVISION booth duties and IMTC promotion and networking. But I was very happy that I managed to attend Zohar Zisapel talk about video. Zohar is RADVISION Chairman of the Board, and a Video over IP industry veteran.

I really liked what I heard, probably because it resonated so much with my own perspective on the real-time Video. Just to reflect back, I had startling moment at IMTC Fall Forum 2001 in Seattle, where Rich Baker, one of the PictureTel founders, said the following: “in the enterprise, Video is not mission-critical application, and voice and e-mail are”. This was something I never realized before, and from that moment on, I kept repeating that sentiment almost as a mantra.

Enterprises don’t have compelling reason to put video on every desktop… until video becomes personal. Until people will be able to use video to connect to their families and friends, there will be no driving force behind video on every desktop. And this is what Zohar was talking about and vividly demonstrating with a number of excellent video clips. The ubiquitous video connectivity is becoming part of our daily life (well, not necessarily in US, yet).

With advent of 3G mobile telephony the ability to see your kids at any time, and to witness remote events, and to conduct business meetings from the beach is simply priceless. And as Zohar pointed out, video does worth a thousand words, as he clearly demonstrated with last clip in his presentation, showing a number of short silent video fragments, which were delivering very powerful emotions.

And then there was only one question coming from the audience (and that was the question I was expecting to hear) – when 3G will come to US. Well, nobody was able to answer that question, but with all the new phones, supporting Wi-Fi, 3G and EVDO, my hopes are really high that even US will come out from the stone cellular age. Now, we just need to ensure all those technologies are interoperable…

Are Open Standards helpful and beneficial?

By Anatoli Levine

Open standards play a vital role in today’s communications. Traditional PSTN telephony, which is still empowering most of the world to communicate, wired and wireless IP networks, Internet, World Wide Web – all of this technologies we are so used to are based on Open Standards.

At the same time, open standards have their own “dark” side. They require heavy investment of time and money to develop – top notch experts from all over the world spend lots of time working on the standards. Once developed, implementation and deployment are also costly, as interoperability needs to be tested and verified. Additionally, the need to “play by the [open standard] rules” might adversely impact time to market.

A lot of today’s success stories, as Skype, for instance, are closed end systems. You don’t spend lots of time trying to reach consensus in ego and politics fight, you deploy when you ready, you control who connects to your network, you change implementation as you see fit – and this list of advantages can be easily continued.

So in the end of the day, are Open Standards helpful and beneficial or not? Do they push technology forward or become a stumbling block? IMTC (International Multimedia Telecommunications Consortium), together with PulverMedia, assembled panel of experts who will help us to find answers to some of these questions.

It’s always the same - Standards, Interoperability and Expertise

By Anatoli Levine

I’m very excited to be the first to welcome you to the IMTC Blog! As a popular saying goes, it is hard to teach old dogs the new tricks. IMTC is 14 years old, so in the terms of age technology, it is quite an honorable age. A lot of young engineers today might even question the sheer existence of the standards IMTC was all about. However, IMTC as an organization is evolving, and we do “learn new tricks” and reinvent ourselves. We moved from H.320 to H.323, then to Packet Switched, SIP and 3G Mobile Video. We continue evolving further to IMS and Content Delivery.

IMTC managed to build an incredibly valuable collection of standardization-related documents for such technologies like JPEG (we call this collection a Historical Archive). While organization evolved, the core things IMTC is all about stayed the same – standards, interoperability and expertise.

IMTC always advocated multimedia communications technologies based on open standards. The focus of the IMTC work is Real Life Interoperability. With numerous Interoperability testing events, including the flagship annual SuperOp! event, IMTC is well known in the industry as leading authority on interoperability testing. And with IMTC Forums, we always bring together world experts in multimedia communications and standards development. And this combination of expertise and leadership makes me believe in exciting future prospects of IMTC.

I do like science fiction a lot. While driving today to work, I was thinking about predictions made in the books about the ways we will communicate. And one thing did strike me is that almost everything which was dreamed of, except may be “Beam me up, Scotty”, is the reality today. We can see and hear each other any time any place, we always know our exact location, our cars can park themselves...if you are a science fiction writer, what kind of communication technologies will you envision? Well, I’m sure, whatever we will come up with, IMTC will be around to make sure it is interoperable and to promote it.

And while the new technologies are being invented, IMTC is continuing on its current way, and inviting you to join in. Next week at VON in San Jose, IMTC puts together a panel of experts who will discuss the role of standards in the today’s communications world. More info is available here: http://www.von.com/schedule_gcs31168946047.html

Then in April, IMTC members will get together for annual SuperOp! 2007 event ( April 23-27, in Jesi, Italy), to test all the latest developments in SIP, IMS, 3G-324M, Packet Switched and other technologies. And of course we have more events planned throughout 2007 and beyond. Bottom line is very simple – if your company is not a member of IMTC yet, make it high priority to join IMTC and help shaping the future of multimedia communications!

Have a great interoperable communications day!

There’s a new IMS AG - A new warm and toasty place for IMS client developers

By Tsahi Levent-Levi

You’ve probably already heard about IMS (and no, I am not referring to the Institute of Mathematical Statistics), and if you haven’t it’s about time!

In a way, IMS is all we ever wanted out of a communication system but were always afraid to ask for. It can handle services – intelligent ones, which traverse through several, different application servers. It can do billing. It is flexible. But it is also complex. Very complex. And at the heart of it there’s SIP – the text-based VoIP signaling protocol.

In its present state, IMS requires a large set of protocols. For SIP alone you will need SigComp, and Offer-Answer model, and Preconditions and P-headers, and new authentication and authorization mechanisms. And that’s not all. Since this requires a huge amount of work, the industry has come up with a new term for “wannabe IMS” companies that are currently deploying SIP and want to migrate to IMS: “IMS-ready.” By calling their products “IMS-ready,” what are they really trying to tell us? “Well, I have SIP, and I really want to do IMS… and since SIP is part of IMS, I am ‘IMS-ready.’” This means that sometime in the future they will get around to developing all those nasty IMS components that are missing.

If you think that this is all there is to it, then you’re quite wrong! If you have an IMS-compliant (NOT “IMS-ready”) solution on a SIP IMS User Agent (that’s a client), you also have a lot of applications running there. These can be VoIP, Video over IP, PoC (Push-to-X), Presence, Instant Messaging and maybe more. Each one of these is a world of its own, with a set of rules that are specifically tied to large number of standards – some of which are not even finalized! So your world as a client developer is a rather challenging one indeed!

How can a frazzled client developer possibly stay on top of all this? You can join the IMTC IMS Activity Group – a new “home away from home” especially for IMS client developers.

For years, the IMTC has been working on interoperability of multimedia technologies. I have been a part of this myself, as a co-chairman of the 3G-324M AG (Activity Group) for several years – in the good old days when video on 3G handsets was only in its infancy. Our 3G-324M AG has done some great things, and we still are, making sure that new handsets can talk to one another with video over circuit switched connections.

Now the IMTC has decided to open a new Activity Group to deal specifically with IMS interoperability issues on the client side – to help all those mobile handsets, wireless PDAs and wireline phones that want to be IMS clients. Not “IMS-ready” – IMS-compliant.

The bottom line: If you are doing IMS, and you are developing clients, the IMS AG, is the place for you. I’m the co-chairman and I can tell you that companies like Ericsson, Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung are already there. So come and join us!

To Standard or not to Standard

By Kfir Pravda

So you gathered a bunch of telecom freaks, rented a basement, and saved some budget for cold Pizza. You are going to conquer the world with your amazing application that changes the way people consume media and communicate - forever. Chambers is going to beg you for a job, and the guys with the funny name from Estonia will have wished they stayed in P2P file sharing applications when you're done.

Now is the time to get down and dirty with the little details - such as - are you trying to build a whole new ecosystem, or ride on the waves of others?

More specifically - are you going to create your own proprietary protocols, or base your product on open standards?

One of the biggest mistakes is to think that this is a technical question that an engineer should answer. The truth is that this question is mainly a business and strategic one. It pretty much depends on the way you see your future - do you want to be an ant in the grass, with a chance to become the next big thing that captures the market? Or would you rather ride on the back of the elephant, with a chance to play a major part in an industry created by others (with deeper pockets)?

I have to say that there are a lot of pros in going standard. First of all, you can reduce your development time by using the accumulated knowledge of the industry. The knowledge you can tap when working in a standard environment will always exceed any amount of engineers and technology experts you can possibly hire.

Second, in case your application is based on a Network Effect, like most of the communication products, you can rely on the marketing dollars of others to educate the market. Then, you just need to find a niche where you gain cash and exposure (in a way, the "crossing the chasm" concept).

Third, you might be able to shorten the time to exit. If you base your products on standards, a company which is interested in buying you will have a much easier life in integrating your products in their organization and product line (based on the assumption it also works on standard based products).

Well, this would have been a great post if those annoying guys from Skype didn't come with their amazing application. You see - they did it all on their own, and at the end of the day - made my mother use VoIP - before any other SIP based product. They focused on user experience, and still managed to beat the rest of the VoIP techies to the desktop.

If so, maybe the standard world isn't that great? First, it takes ages to draft standards. Then, the standard bodies are dominated by the big players, which make the life of the little guys harder - as they have different agendas then helping a young start-up to rise. And last but not least, it is not trivial to find a niche in a standard based industry, especially for a small company. When standards reduce technical competitive advantage, marketing dollars kicks in - an area in which a small company will usually loose to the big guys.

So, here is the question: If you would develop a new video conferencing application, the next VoIP system, or any other communication related product - what will be your choice? To Standard or Not To Standard?

###

We are going to try and answer this question at the panel “My Mother uses Skype – Why Bother with Standards?” in the upcoming Spring VON, in San Jose, 19-22nd of March 2007. Among the panelists are Anatoli Levine, IMTC president and Sr. Director, Software Support at RADVISION, Håkon Dahle, CTO, TANDBERG, Chris Steck, Director of Technology Strategy, RealNetworks, and the brave Skype representative Jonathan Christensen.

This post by Kfir Pravda was originally published in Jeff Pulver’s blog