Dal over at Asterisk VoIP News has written a terrific piece detailing some of the reasons why “Voice 2.0” developers prefer to work with open source platforms, as opposed to proprietary, closed technologies from the likes of Microsoft, Broadsoft or Sylantro. The original story comments on the findings of a recent industry survey administered by research firm iLocus.

First, let me say I agree emphatically with Dal’s analysis of the survey results.

A – Open Source Platforms are now considered “carrier grade”. OpenSER, Asterisk and FreeSwitch power many of the voice related applications we use everyday….we just don’t necessarily know that. I am seeing OSS platforms used extensively in the carrier / service provider space. OpenSER and FreeSwitch offer tremendous scalability, and even Asterisk won’t be typecast as just an IP PBX for small businesses much longer. These platforms are feature rich and inherently flexible, and can be safely deployed to service a variety of user requirements. They also benefit greatly through the efforts of faithful coders around the globe.

B – …platform vendors have an established telco customer base, who in turn have paying customers which forms a natural first target population for a developer’s Voice 2.0 application. This is also true, but it is my belief that the current “per capita” growth rate of OSS platform deployment will soon eclipse that of traditional proprietary system, if this has not already occurred. Having a huge “installed base” of users is the proverbial “feather in the cap” of traditional proprietary vendors. Will these users continue to be willing to pay a premium for new features and services? I’m guessing that as more businesses become aware of the overall “cost of ownership” between closed and OSS technologies….well, let’s just say that it’s a good time to be a Penguin.

C – The survey also reveals that the Voice 2.0 developers are not so keen on consumer driven applications. Dal surmises that developers are aggregating their efforts toward commercial “business” users, rather than mass consumers because it ties into an easier monetization strategy, and also because of our current love affair with CRM, Conferencing, FMC and other business communications productivity enablers. While I agree with these takeaways….I also feel that a growing sentiment amongst voice application developers (and a correct assumption) is that the vast majority of features, bells and whistles are completely wasted on general consumers. This may seem a bit generalized….but for many consumers of voice services….dialtone, text messaging, ringtones and Youtube videos are meeting their general day to day requirements in good stead.
As more vendors like SalesForce.com open up their platforms (and their installed customer base) to OSS loyal developers….and if applications continue to migrate from the desktop into the network cloud….the effectiveness of the “installed base” and “well established distribution channel” arguments for proprietary technologies will wane.

Other than that, Skype is doing a great job of defending its turf, as well as innovating at the same time, adding Video, Presence and other “Voice 2.0” features and continuing to serve it up at a budget conscious price point. Tough opponent to contend with. I suspect these factors also contribute to an overall preference for a “business focus” amongst Voice 2.0 startups.

One aspect that Dal did not comment on, but which cannot be underestimated, is price. As a developer, I can acquire a Voice 2.0 capable development foundation such as Asterisk or SER for next to nothing. I don’t need to wait for a callback from a Sylantro reseller in order to get started building my baby. I can point my browser over to SourceForge and be writing AGI scripts in a matter of hours. I also do not need angel investors or VC’s to bankroll my operation, nor do I need a college degree or much of a foundation in traditional application development. OSS platforms also happen to work well with OSS development tools like Ruby and Adhearsion. If you would have told me I could get free, unlimited access to a capable voice platform and also free tools with which to develop….I would probably be mulling over yacht trimmings instead of writing this.

We’ve reached the tipping point, and I fully expect the trend towards adoption of OSS platforms and dev tools to continue to accelerate and proliferate at an astonishing rate.

I just had a thought.

Is SMS the new email?

I mean this in both a positive and negative light.

Admittedly I am a huge SMS user and I USED to be a big email user. Why am I no longer a big email users?

Because the more I used it, the more emails I got and the harder it became to manage.

This morning I awoke to six text messages from friends overnight. Today, between 8am and noon, I received ten. I haven’t responded to any of them yet, just like most of the email is received today.

So with all of the buzz about the “mobile future” it is only a matter of time before SMS will become just like email – spammy, auto-generated, impersonal and overwhelming?

At least SMS was useful for a few years (and hopefully a few more)…

Pat Phelan has an interesting post today about innovation and the tendency for most “bleeding edge” technology companies to over-innovate with their offerings, leaving mainstream users light years behind early adopters.

While this is not a short term issue, it is a long term one, since most businesses continue to innovate over time. However success (in financial terms) only comes when a product or service reaches mainstream acceptance (there are a few exceptions of course, however for the most part mainstream is where the money is at). If your company continues to grow and never slows down (or goes back to the basics), eventually you will be caught in a vicious cycle of innovation – a constant pattern of creating cool new things that appeal to a small niche of early adopter, forever leaving behind the mainstream user who thinks your product or service is too complex, abstract or down right unusable.

I myself find that I am launching the same initiatives today, as I tried in 2005, only this time there is actual uptake on them. Sometimes it is tough always being on the bleeding edge, but at the end of the day we all have to keep in mind that most folks are not like us (us as in early adopters, technophiles, geeks, etc).

Therefore mainstream users need a little more time to adapt and hence we should operate our businesses in a manner in which allows for both “bleeding edge” and “mainstream” users to benefit from our product or service. What this means is that we must innovate through simplicity…simple service, that also has advanced “early adopter” features (or uses), yet mimics the “traditional” usage patterns a mainstream users expects. A prime example of advanced simplicity is the Apple iPod. It was bleeding edge enough for

I am not saying this is easy, but for those who can achieve these usability levels will find great success.