Thoughts on Microsoft Response Point

Thoughts on Microsoft Response Point

Summary: One of the products that stood out at last week's Internet Telephony EXPO was Microsoft Response Point. Built as an easy way to bring SIP-based digital telephony to small organizations, it's ease of use is a step on the path towards pulling customers away from traditional, TDM-based telephony well as a very different product than the kind Microsoft traditionally develops.


I'm not usually someone who reviews individual software products. There are stacks of people in the blogosphere who will take products for a spin, kick the tires, and write long posts about their experiences. Okay, I may do a bit of that. My installation of Media Center as my primary viewing system for TV caused me to have lots of experience with Media Center, which served as grist for many blog posts.

In this case, though, Microsoft's Response Point - the product I learned about at last week's ITEXPO - was particularly interesting to me as it didn't fit well into some of the theories I have about the directions Microsoft should take from a business and strategic standpoint.

Most former Microsoft employees, in my experience, have strong opinions about the strategic directions they think their former employer should take, and I am no exception. In my case, I tend to fixate on Microsoft's historical role as maker of software platforms. I think that every piece of software Microsoft makes should be designed as a set of reusable widgets that easily plugs into the wider Microsoft ecosystem.

Granted, not every product in the Microsoft lineup lends itself easily to high levels of programmability.  Even so, a good model is the one Microsoft used with the Office suite of products. Every application in the Office family can be reused and automated in third party software. This served as a strong competitive advantage for the company, and the fact that Microsoft tends to do this with most of its products makes the Microsoft "ecosystem" approach a winning strategy.

Microsoft's Response Point, however, doesn't fit into that model at least not yet.

Microsoft Response Point is a product that aims to serve as a drop-in solution for business telephony in organizations with less than 50 people. On that count alone, Response Point is pretty interesting. You buy the Response Point base unit much like you buy a wireless router for you home, dropping it into your network without having to do anything fiddly and error-prone like install software (the base unit, in other words, is designed as a telephony appliance). The base unit is made by various hardware vendors (which is generally a wise move for a software company), such as Syspine, D-Link and Aastra. It's also available at easy to find places (at least in United States) like Costco. On some units, you can plug into the PSTN, but Response Point really comes into its own by using a SIP trunk provider (a technology I discussed on Monday). Favored trunk providers include 8x8 (aka Packet8) and, which is a concept of particular relevance in SIP trunking given the evolving nature of SIP trunking standards.

Response Point phones all have an ethernet jack on the back, which means you just plug the phone into the network like you do any other network-enabled device. At that point, the phone broadcasts its MAC identity via uPnP, which adminstrators link to a user account via a configuration tool that communicates with the base station. Once linked, configuration changes automatically propagate back to the phone. For instance, during my demo, I noticed that the phone they had configured for me to use had my name misspelled in the LCD window, a common occurrence given that Carroll for some inconceivable reason has two r's and l's. One of the program manager's in attendance fired up the admin console, changed the name, and it propagated back to the phone.

SIP is the protocol they use for networking within the office environment, the software stack for which was borrowed from the main code tree used for Office Communications Server (OCS, which is a product aimed at larger organizations, and considerably more complicated to configure). Why, then, are there special phones licensed as Response Point-compatible devices?

Response Point does work with traditional phones, but Response Point-licensed phones - easily identifiable by a large-ish blue button on the face of the device - provide special functionality. When pressed, the blue button initiates the voice recognition features that are an integral part of the Response Point system. This allows users to do things like call other people in the office, call named addresses in an address book, transfer calls, or even transfer the call to other phones in the office (you pick up the call by hitting the blue button at your destination and "unparking" the call). It is built on Microsoft Speech Server technology (a feature likely influenced by Xuedong Huang, General Manager of "Microsoft Communications Incubations" and the manager responsible for Response Point, who spent most of his career at Microsoft helping to build the company's speech recognition technologies) all of which is packaged into the base station.

That voice recognition feature can serve to give your organization a "digital receptionist."  For instance, you can create a "switchboard" number for your office, and all the named individuals in your organization can be found simply by saying the name of the person to whom the caller wishes to speak. 

It's a pretty easy to use arrangement. It's not yet within the price range of ordinary consumers. The base station costs about $1000, and the phones cost around $150. That's cheap by office telephony standards, but not cheap enough that a typical consumer is going to run out and build a home telephony system based on it (though I could see things heading that direction at some point in the future).

Response Point is clearly architected as a drop-in appliance that is easy to configure. That militates pretty strongly against the concept of making extensive developer hooks for customization of the experience, which doesn't really fit into the whole "programmable ecosystem" model to which Microsoft, in my opinion, should adhere as a matter of principle.

Every rule, however, has its exceptions, and I think this product makes a strong case for such an exception. The people responsible for Response Point wanted it to be a solution that is as complex to use as a DVD player. You don't program DVD players, and neither should you be programming a Response Point base station. I think there could be more ways to hook Response Point video and audio streams into third party applications (small companies have customization needs, too), though for a version 1.1 product aiming for simplicity, I can understand why that isn't something that is emphasized, at least yet.

I still think most applications at Microsoft should emphasize programmability and reusability, as that is their competitive advantage. But, there is a time and place for it, and early in a product lifecycle might not serve as the right place. Response Point is based on SIP, however,which should help things considerably down the road should they ever contemplate more developer-oriented features.

The concept of easy configuration is certainly of benefit, and one that should be applied even to products that have a high degree of programmer customizability. It does occur to me that one of the reasons Microsoft's server products have gained so much traction is not just because it is solid and stable product (even Microsoft's bitter enemies will admit that), but because Microsoft makes it a lot easier to configure than competing servers. Ease of configuration and use is a virtue in modern computing. Apple has ridden that concept into newfound prominence in the computing landscape.

Generally, I found the Response Point product interesting in ways more complicated solutions on display at the conference did not. It does a good job of pulling legos out of the Microsoft software toolchest and putting them together in an interesting way, something at which I can't say every department within the company is equally skilled. It's also an interesting approach to telephony of a kind that we will see a lot more in the future. The hardest part of breaking the hold traditional telephony has on the average consumer is breaking through the "ease of use" barrier. Something like this helps to popularize an end-to-end digital solution, which is an important step in the evolution away from traditional phone service.

Topics: Microsoft, Emerging Tech, Mobility, Networking, Software, Telcos, Unified Comms

John Carroll

About John Carroll

John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Politics of Programming

    What has been so hard about being articulate and clear to
    the end user? Why, to this day, are arcane and obtuse
    references constantly popping up on Windows machines?
    It's a legacy of obfuscation that has come from a
    programming culture. This culture has lorded it over users
    for 15 years and they are sick and tired of bitter and
    poorly socialized nerds taking extended revenge for a
    wedgie in the schoolyard 30 years ago. The complexity of
    these systems has had to rear it's ugly head every hour,
    just so we can be made aware how smart and hard working
    it's programmers are.

    Real advocates for machine code as a new lingua franca
    will endorse a foundation of open standards, accessible to
    everyone, not API "product" to a boys club. Utopian?
    Maybe, but affirmative action, the GPL, and our highest
    courts have been required to gain a reasonable middle
    ground. Real advocates for the monetization of software
    meanwhile, understand the cash comes from the
    consumer, not the programmer.

    Now, after an monopoly finding, and a short leash, a new,
    real, and truly open market exerts it's influence.
    Consumers, not OEMs not programmers, not the tech cognoscenti, are at the tiller. Can we now expect software
    to be poorly made because the arbiter of what will sell is
    non-technical? That's doesn't seem to be happening.
    Software is no worse, and arguably better. Stinkers on the
    iPhone's App store are voted into an ignominious end
    while the winners receive windfalls. Social networking and
    the desire to "author" opinion makes redundant or second
    rate programmers improve or go away. Like they should.
    The cultivation of mediocrity is over.

    So more power to the new Microsoft. The one that now has
    to sell to users directly. If they had to do more of it earlier,
    it would have had a less incestuous, higher quality
    product. In the midst of a 300 million dollar approval
    seeking ad campaign, targeting users directly, it's also
    good to see they may have something to back it up.
    Harry Bardal
    • iPhone applications

      ...make them, so long as you don't try to do anything better than products Apple already includes on an iPhone. That central control has made me less interested in writing iPhone applications (Mac applications are a different story).

      [i]Real advocates for machine code as a new lingua franca will endorse a foundation of open standards, accessible to everyone, not API "product" to a boys club.[/i]

      Yeah, like iTunes is open. Like the interface with an iPod is open. Like the ability to put applications on the iPhone is open (or even to get it into the app store).

      Let's not pretend that Apple is open. Yes, they do use plenty of key open software protocols. When it comes to their hardware solutions, however, they control the environment tighter than anyone else in the market.

      As for strategic directions (developer centricity versus consumer centricity), I think there is a middle ground. It's like the continuum between a centrally-planned economy and anarchic free market capitalism. Apple more than anyone else saw the need to make things easy and fun to use. Part of that process (which you hate, even as it benefits your favored product) is to make their products beautiful. Hey, beauty matters to regular consumers, as does fashion, and branding...all things about which Apple has proven very smart.

      But, I do think that the approach that won the computer wars is still important. It just has to be modified. Learn from Apple, but continue to be a product that emphasizes platform and ecosystem. It's a Microsoft competitive advantage, though it won't remain so fovever if competitors figure out the right balance.

      I'm not going to defend arcane error messages.
      John Carroll
      • Open

        My point is not to make it look as though Apple is open.
        They're obviously not. That's kinda my point. My point is
        that everything beyond the GPL is closed. Even the GPL is
        "closed" to monetization. I'm not the one alluding to the
        grand egalitarian platform here. That's what you're selling.

        I'm talking about a given business with a given roster of
        products. Take them or leave them. The consumer's
        criteria for choice, is now "does it meet my human needs",
        not "does it have an extensible API". If iTunes offends, and
        downloading that Tom Petty song for the iPod leads to
        social collapse, please avoid it. I'm just not sure the
        supporter of the actual monopolist is the one who gets to
        give that lecture.

        Open platforms are sloppy, experiments in utopianism that
        are the best place to start, but the worst destination.
        Microsoft's "open architecture" is exceeding critical mass. It
        has propagated mediocrity to promote interoperability. It
        has not been a victory of open tech standards de-facto or
        otherwise. It has been the wholesale replacement of
        Darwin's marketplace by a single, vast, company store.

        Open and healthy competition between vendors of
        proprietary offerings is the new order. Open competition,
        is the only "open" we need. In the last 15 years of tech,
        there has only been one impediment to that competition.
        Harry Bardal
  • Means to an end?

    You may be hinting at this in your article anyhow, but could Response Point also be a small-scale test of the direction Microsoft is taking OCS? From those prices, they obviously aren't in it for the money. ;)
    • Response Point vs OCS

      Response Point is ahead of OCS in terms of voice functions. It is probably be design so OCS can do it right when they are ready for delivering an enterprise product. The risk to do a small business product is less. I think they are testing the water by relying on the Response Point product to get it right. Response Point can be easily a platform. What they are trying to do is to make sure the customers are happy first. Once they achieve that, it is easier to push the platform. I have looked at both OCS and RP. I am not sure most people enjoy using OCS at this stage and it will be hard for Microsoft to push the OCS as a platform.
  • External Users

    My small company has looked at the Response Point system, but can't use it because it works for "on premise" phones only. All my users work "virtually" out of the house and for security purposes they are not allowed to connect through VPN to the corp network. It's my uderstanding that you cannot publish the base station through a firewall and program the phones to connect to it via the external IP. Because of this, we've been evaluating the windows based VOIP PBX called 3CX. It even comes with it's own soft phone. It's very easy to configure (web based) and supports external users. WWW.3CX.COM.