Connect third-party audio and video solutions to Microsoft Teams
Hi, Habr! I present to you the translation-adaptation of the article "Integrating Third-Party Voice & Video with Microsoft Teams" by Brent Kelly , in which he addresses the problem of integrating Microsoft Teams with other products.
July 9, 2018
Is your Skype for Business infrastructure now useful, and why does Microsoft block access to Teams to third-party audio / video solutions?
')
Being at InfoComm ( exhibition 13-19 June 2018 - editor of Video + Conference ), I once again remembered how huge the global market for audio and video is. Among several hundred vendors at the exhibition were well-known: BlueJeans, Crestron, Lifesize, Pexip, Polycom - now Plantronics, StarLeaf, Zoom.
I had a great idea to find out what these companies are doing to integrate with Microsoft Teams. They are all compatible with Skype for Business, but we have heard from Microsoft that Teams integration will work differently. InfoComm gave me the opportunity to ask the manufacturers questions directly and get a general idea of ​​how this integration will be implemented. Then I did not know how difficult and ambiguous this topic would be.
It is impossible to understand the issues of collaboration with Teams, if you do not know how the integration with Skype for Business was arranged. Microsoft opened the curtain, revealing protocols, signaling and used audio / video codecs. In fact, Microsoft has published a specification for the audio and video protocols of Skype for Business and provided an opportunity for third-party manufacturers to embed them themselves into their communication protocol stacks in order to achieve some sort of compatibility. This required a lot of effort, but nevertheless some vendors were able to create working solutions using these specifications. For example, AudioCodes, Polycom, Spectralink and Yealink used these specifications in their Microsoft-certified audio equipment for working with Skype for Business. This equipment is registered on the Skype for Business server, and users authenticate directly from their devices using their SfB mobile or desktop account.
All phones that work with Skype for Business are defined by Microsoft as third-party IP phones - 3PIP - and interact with the local or online version of SfB. Defining a phone as 3PIP is very important for working with Microsoft Teams.
Polycom, when developing its RealPresence Group video conferencing devices, decided to go a little further. Using the specifications, the company has developed a software module that allows its equipment to connect and register directly with the Skype for Business server. That is, these client terminals can be connected directly to any audio or video conferencing of Skype for Business.
Microsoft has also released software specifications for its Skype Room System (SRS) video conferencing solution, versions 1 and 2 — this is a group conference solution. Although partners may add some unique settings, they must install the Microsoft SRS software on their hardware. Microsoft’s goal was to make Skype for Business experience no different for customers, regardless of whether this equipment is partner or Microsoft’s SfB applications.
SRS solutions are being developed by Crestron, HP, Lenovo, Logitech, Polycom, Smart Technologies. True, Smart has developed only a solution for the first version of the SRS specification. Well, Microsoft itself is called Microsoft Surface Hub.
Compatibility of audio and video devices from third-party manufacturers with local and cloud versions of Skype for Business
So far we have discussed third-party solutions integrated with Skype for Business Server, for those cases when the conference is held on the Skype for Business server. Others followed these first steps in the field of integration.
Skype for Business (aka Lync) is not universally distributed, however, it is used in very many organizations. Some of these organizations also have client video terminals from Cisco, Lifesize, Polycom, and other manufacturers. And businesses need solutions that enable users of Skype for Business client applications to call terminals from other manufacturers.
In response to this request, some companies, such as Acano and Pexip, created local solutions that allow you to connect to conferences based on standard SIP and H.323 terminals from Skype for Business video terminals. This idea was so successful that at the beginning of 2016, Cisco bought Acano for $ 700 million and fully incorporated this product into what is now called Cisco Meeting Server.
Cloud conferencing providers also joined in this game with compatibility. BlueJeans, Lifesize, Polycom, Starleaf and Zoom have developed solutions that enable users of Skype for Business client applications to connect to conferences with the participation of video conferencing terminals operating on standard protocols. All these third-party solutions use Skype for Business audio / video specifications to ensure interoperability between SfB workstations on the one hand, and other people's phones, terminals, MCUs and cloud-based video conferencing solutions on the other.
The world has adapted to the proprietary approach of Microsoft and third-party developers harmoniously combine their solutions with Skype for Business.
So why did Microsoft mess things up with Teams?
Microsoft said it wants to create a new communication platform that would provide both innovation and the ability to comfortably use different devices. Therefore, Teams laid the “Next Generation Communications Service (NGCS)” to work with the entire stack of audio and video technologies.
The new service is based on the usual home Skype. This means that in the custom versions of Skype and Teams the same cloud communication protocol is used. The service supports Silk, Opus, G.711 and G.722 audio codecs, as well as the H.264 AVC video codec. That is, these are the very protocols that are supported by many third-party manufacturers of audio and video systems.
But there are serious differences in the signal protocol and transport.
Microsoft proprietary signal processing technologies provide full-duplex stereo echo cancellation, adaptive frequency deviation compensation, recovery or masking of lost packets, and audio priority over video, which ensures high quality audio and video communications under various network conditions. Some of these functions are available in the terminals, some require cloud services, that is, for efficient operation, the terminal and the service must be synchronized.
Now many alternative solutions support the same codecs, provide noise reduction, error correction, and more. So why did Microsoft, in fact, cut off access to Teams for third-party audio and video solutions? Microsoft claims that it introduced many innovations for Teams, but these advanced features require constant updates from both Teams and the client. Third-party software and video technologies in this case greatly reduce the quality of communication to the least general possibilities. This kills Microsoft’s aspirations to provide users with access to improved features and a uniform user experience across devices: PCs, tablets, smartphones, landlines and video devices. At the Enterprise Connect 2018 conference, Microsoft gave examples of these enhanced features:
So, Microsoft uncompromisingly requires that its software be pre-installed on third-party devices. Now let's find out which of your devices with Skype for Business installed will now work with Teams, and more importantly, which ones will not .
Skype for Business and Teams users can exchange instant messages between their respective client applications. From a phone that has Skype for Business installed, or from a client, you can directly call a Teams user and vice versa. However, this compatibility works only for point-to-point calls. Group conferences and chats are available only to users within one of the solutions.
All incoming and outgoing calls between Teams and PSTN subscribers go through the session border controller (SBC). Microsoft now supports SBC from AudioCodes, Ribbon Communications and ThinkTel. Of course, if you are calling through Microsoft programs, you do not need your SBC. But if you have your own PSTN connection directly through the provider via SIP highways or through highways connected to cloudy or local PBXs, you will need your own SBC.
Microsoft has reported that some telephony service providers in different countries are developing Teams-compatible PSTN communications. Microsoft called them “direct routing.”
If you purchased a Skype for Business 3PIP phone certified for use, then Microsoft has built in the next-generation communication service gateways that allow your device to work with Teams.
Moreover, some 3PIP-phones work under Android. Updates come to such devices, thanks to which it will be possible to use new features of Teams as they become available. More specifically, these phones will launch an application that uses the stack of new Microsoft protocols to connect to Teams directly without gateways. 3PIP devices running on other operating systems will not receive updates with new Teams features. Updates can get 3PIP devices AudioCodes C450HD, Crestron Mercury, Polycom Trio and Yealink CP960, T56 and T58. These manufacturers will launch phones with native support from Teams in 2019.
Microsoft promises that updates will come to any Skype Room Systems (SRS) partner devices that will turn these devices into Teams terminals. After that, they will constantly receive updates for Teams as they are released. All devices with Surface Hub will also receive updates that will make Teams work possible.
Microsoft selected three partners — BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom, to ensure compatibility between standard video teleconferencing terminals (VTC) and Teams. These solutions are very similar, but there are some differences. All of their services are only available in the Microsoft Azure cloud and are used to interact with the next-generation Teams interface of the Microsoft API. They mainly provide signaling gateways and media gateways between video terminals and Teams.
Although Microsoft supports integration with standard terminals, but with some neglect. The fact is that user interaction there is not the same as in Teams. On video terminals, it looks more like Skype for Business — several video streams, the ability to show a screen and see what is shown on the screen.
For example, BlueJeans offers BlueJeans Gateway for Teams (BlueJeans Gateway for Teams) - a service available through the Azure cloud. This gateway can be purchased separately, that is, without the need to purchase any BlueJeans services. The beta version of the solution is being tested by partners participating in the Microsoft Technology Adoption Program (TAP). In BlueJeans believe that it will be available by the end of the summer. BlueJeans Gateway for Teams will be available from the Microsoft store, directly from BlueJeans or from a Microsoft sales partner. Most likely, versions will be available for both personal and collective use. The service can be configured through the Office 365 admin panel.
Information about connecting to a conference using BlueJeans Gateway for Teams can be automatically distributed via a conference invitation. The link “Connect to Video Room” contains the address of the terminal.
To connect to the Teams conference, the video room of the meeting room calls the gateway directly, using the information specified in the invitation, or BlueJeans transmits the connection information directly to the terminal through its control program. If the terminal supports the connection “one button”, then it can be turned on with one touch, or activated via the touch panel controller.
Pexip solution allows organizations to use a dedicated copy of Pexip Gateway for Teams in the Azure cloud. Pexip will manage your copy of the gateway as part of a suite of services. But in this case, you will have to pay for the processing required for its work in Azure.
Polycom RealConnect is a multi-tenant (multitenant) solution running in the Azure cloud. The cost includes all processing in Azure. RealConnect is currently in beta testing with several Microsoft TAP members.
Judging by the way it looks now, Cisco, Lifesize, Zoom and any other video calling services will not be able to interact with Teams at all (the workaround will be described below) if you do not have a solution with a gateway from one of the three partners mentioned above.
StarLeaf offers a solution for interacting with Teams, but Microsoft does not support it, although it reports that compatibility with this solution can be provided with the release of Teams updates.
I tried to understand why Microsoft objects to the StarLeaf implementation. It seemed reasonable to me. It works like this: StarLeaf deploys the full version of Teams on a Windows virtual machine that boots on top of the Linux kernel running on a StarLeaf video terminal. The StarLeaf Maestro control program also runs on Linux. Maestro has access to Microsoft Exchange and sees the room schedule or individual user schedule. When a Teams conference is assigned to this terminal (for Skype for Business, this scheme also works, by the way), Maestro uses the Teams API to automatically connect Teams to the conference. Simultaneously, Teams video content is sent via the API to the StarLeaf screen. The StarLeaf user does not see the Teams user interface.
The StarLeaf Teams solution is based on the Linux kernel. A Windows virtual machine is installed on top of it, which runs both Teams and Skype for Business client applications. Teams video content is displayed, but the Teams user interface cannot be seen.
Microsoft on this occasion states that StarLeaf distributes the Teams client on their devices without confirmed authorization. They require authorization from all companies to make sure that the distributed software is safe, legal and updated to the latest version. By distributing Microsoft software without authorization, StarLeaf, in their opinion, confuses users, because users who acquire this software will not receive Microsoft support.
However, it seems to me that since StarLeaf uses a genuine Teams client with a license purchased by the user, and this client can be updated using standard Microsoft tools, technically this solution should work fine.
Microsoft claims that StarLeaf uses in its software such methods of control over the Teams application that Microsoft did not develop or support. Perhaps if Microsoft changes the basic functionality or interface of Teams, the StarLeaf solution will stop working. But in this case, other solutions “approved” by Microsoft may also stop working.
At InfoComm, I explored the Polycom Trio interface for audio and video communication through Teams.
Trio, compatible with Teams, works on Android, and as a result it works with Android, modified by Microsoft for its partners. Since Microsoft software is running there, Trio can connect directly with Teams. But only for audio communication.
With video calls all smarter. When running Trio Visual + with Teams, video content passes through the Polycom RealConnect gateway in the Azure cloud.
Trio connects directly to Teams during audio communication. When the Trio Visual + package is used for video communication, audio and video streams go through the Polycom RealConnect service to Azure and then go to Teams.
Microsoft claims that this technology is not certified and is not supported. I do not know why Microsoft thinks so. When Trio Visual + is used with Teams, audio and video streams pass through the Polycom RealConnect gateway, which they have certified and supported. In this sense, video communication works in the same way as on any other video terminal. Just the interface is not so well developed, which is annoying to Microsoft. So, despite the fact that Microsoft does not certify and does not support this solution, it works and it is quite inventive.
What should Cisco or Zoom users do? It turns out that both companies have developed bots for Teams that run their solutions.
With the help of these bots, you can invite participants to a video conference from the correspondence in Teams. The chat contains a link that, when clicked, launches Cisco Webex or the Zoom application.
Example of compatibility of third-party solutions with Teams through the bot. The bots place the link in the Teams chat, which when clicked, launches Cisco Webex or the video zoom solution Zoom.
Microsoft insists that only those devices that have Microsoft software installed can directly work with Teams. This year ( in 2018 - a comment of the Video + Conference editor ) is expected to release new IP phones with Android and the pre-installed Teams application. Customers on these phones will receive updates directly from Microsoft as they are released.
The only terminals supported and certified for direct integration with Teams are the Skype Room System (SRS) and Surface Hub devices. Of course, Microsoft approved the above-mentioned gateways for video terminals from BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom. Anything else Microsoft does not support. By the way, I don’t know why Microsoft still uses the Skype Room System brand ... I’ve been waiting for it to turn into the Teams Room System a long time ago, but time will tell. ( Microsoft announced rebranding on January 23, 2019 - Editor's Note )
Polycom at one time developed group video terminals compatible with Skype for Business. This is a line of Polycom MSR. Now they will work with Teams. Phones from Polycom Teams will appear in early 2019, and I think Polycom will present some group video terminals for Teams, but so far there have been no statements about this.
We also need to keep in mind that Microsoft now supports WebRTC. Conference participants who do not have Teams installed can connect via WebRTC. This feature will appear first in the Microsoft Edge browser, but immediately after it will be available in other browsers that support WebRTC (Chrome, Firefox, and, of course, Safari).
Microsoft is clearly going to put an end to a variety of third-party unsupported solutions. This forces partners and end users to sweat to make the device or software work with Teams. Although, if you look from the other side, where Microsoft is looking from, Teams is a new dynamic environment for working together with great opportunities, the number of which will grow all the time. New features will require some changes in the cloud and on the side of client programs. Therefore, Microsoft should be able to simultaneously upgrade both services and client applications to ensure the best quality of communications and communications. Any compromise will lead to a deterioration in user experience and thus to the least common possibilities. BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom solutions for interacting with terminals confirm this.
Video terminals on which Teams is not installed provide access to very few platform features. User experience management seems to be becoming a common and growing area of ​​focus in the industry. So, Cisco with its Webex Teams is trying to improve interaction by controlling the user interface. And, like Microsoft, it supports the WebRTC version of its client, which provides work with video terminals.
Zoom, in turn, expands its own solution for video conferencing. Zoom not only supports videoconferencing terminals from other manufacturers, but also developed its own Zoom Room software for group video conferencing, a PC client (but not based on WebRTC) and clients for mobile devices.
What can I say about all this?
I use video ... very often. Mostly from my PC, but on my desktop there is still a SIP-based videophone that supports 1080p resolution, and I use Skype for Business (via Office 365) on my PC. However, now I also use Webex Teams to communicate with Cisco employees, and Microsoft Teams to communicate with people from Microsoft.
I hate downloading new clients and is known for saying to many vendors that if their systems do not support Skype for Business or WebRTC, I will not participate in conferences with them (except for audio calls), simply because I don’t want to trash my computer a bunch of new applications.
Nevertheless, in our industry, there is a tendency, at least for major developers, to provide a full-featured solution with improved user experience and advanced features. Only for access to it, you need to install the client from a specific vendor on all devices - be it a PC or solutions for negotiations. And even on third-party peripherals (for example, phones), the software of this vendor must be running.
I was hoping that with the help of WebRTC it would be possible to overcome the need for specific client applications and we would only need a browser as an interface. In this case, the browser will be a common interface for all types of communications and services. Of course, WebRTC has some limitations, but recently Cisco said that in the new version of the Webex WebRTC client, users will have a full range of opportunities for collaboration.
Each developer must clearly position his proposal, and one of the criteria is a set of functions in the applications. To provide the best user experience and access to basic functionality, a vendor must monitor both client applications and cloud services. This direction is headed by Microsoft along with Teams and integration solutions. And whether we like it or not, we are moving in this direction and we are all together with other vendors. I tell my customers: now is the best time to think about the migration of your communications and work environment to a single solution from one specific vendor.
July 9, 2018
Is your Skype for Business infrastructure now useful, and why does Microsoft block access to Teams to third-party audio / video solutions?
')
Being at InfoComm ( exhibition 13-19 June 2018 - editor of Video + Conference ), I once again remembered how huge the global market for audio and video is. Among several hundred vendors at the exhibition were well-known: BlueJeans, Crestron, Lifesize, Pexip, Polycom - now Plantronics, StarLeaf, Zoom.
I had a great idea to find out what these companies are doing to integrate with Microsoft Teams. They are all compatible with Skype for Business, but we have heard from Microsoft that Teams integration will work differently. InfoComm gave me the opportunity to ask the manufacturers questions directly and get a general idea of ​​how this integration will be implemented. Then I did not know how difficult and ambiguous this topic would be.
A bit of history
It is impossible to understand the issues of collaboration with Teams, if you do not know how the integration with Skype for Business was arranged. Microsoft opened the curtain, revealing protocols, signaling and used audio / video codecs. In fact, Microsoft has published a specification for the audio and video protocols of Skype for Business and provided an opportunity for third-party manufacturers to embed them themselves into their communication protocol stacks in order to achieve some sort of compatibility. This required a lot of effort, but nevertheless some vendors were able to create working solutions using these specifications. For example, AudioCodes, Polycom, Spectralink and Yealink used these specifications in their Microsoft-certified audio equipment for working with Skype for Business. This equipment is registered on the Skype for Business server, and users authenticate directly from their devices using their SfB mobile or desktop account.
All phones that work with Skype for Business are defined by Microsoft as third-party IP phones - 3PIP - and interact with the local or online version of SfB. Defining a phone as 3PIP is very important for working with Microsoft Teams.
Polycom, when developing its RealPresence Group video conferencing devices, decided to go a little further. Using the specifications, the company has developed a software module that allows its equipment to connect and register directly with the Skype for Business server. That is, these client terminals can be connected directly to any audio or video conferencing of Skype for Business.
Microsoft has also released software specifications for its Skype Room System (SRS) video conferencing solution, versions 1 and 2 — this is a group conference solution. Although partners may add some unique settings, they must install the Microsoft SRS software on their hardware. Microsoft’s goal was to make Skype for Business experience no different for customers, regardless of whether this equipment is partner or Microsoft’s SfB applications.
SRS solutions are being developed by Crestron, HP, Lenovo, Logitech, Polycom, Smart Technologies. True, Smart has developed only a solution for the first version of the SRS specification. Well, Microsoft itself is called Microsoft Surface Hub.
Compatibility of audio and video devices from third-party manufacturers with local and cloud versions of Skype for Business
So far we have discussed third-party solutions integrated with Skype for Business Server, for those cases when the conference is held on the Skype for Business server. Others followed these first steps in the field of integration.
Skype on desktops and other terminals
Skype for Business (aka Lync) is not universally distributed, however, it is used in very many organizations. Some of these organizations also have client video terminals from Cisco, Lifesize, Polycom, and other manufacturers. And businesses need solutions that enable users of Skype for Business client applications to call terminals from other manufacturers.
In response to this request, some companies, such as Acano and Pexip, created local solutions that allow you to connect to conferences based on standard SIP and H.323 terminals from Skype for Business video terminals. This idea was so successful that at the beginning of 2016, Cisco bought Acano for $ 700 million and fully incorporated this product into what is now called Cisco Meeting Server.
Cloud conferencing providers also joined in this game with compatibility. BlueJeans, Lifesize, Polycom, Starleaf and Zoom have developed solutions that enable users of Skype for Business client applications to connect to conferences with the participation of video conferencing terminals operating on standard protocols. All these third-party solutions use Skype for Business audio / video specifications to ensure interoperability between SfB workstations on the one hand, and other people's phones, terminals, MCUs and cloud-based video conferencing solutions on the other.
Innovation in Teams and problems with them
The world has adapted to the proprietary approach of Microsoft and third-party developers harmoniously combine their solutions with Skype for Business.
So why did Microsoft mess things up with Teams?
Microsoft said it wants to create a new communication platform that would provide both innovation and the ability to comfortably use different devices. Therefore, Teams laid the “Next Generation Communications Service (NGCS)” to work with the entire stack of audio and video technologies.
The new service is based on the usual home Skype. This means that in the custom versions of Skype and Teams the same cloud communication protocol is used. The service supports Silk, Opus, G.711 and G.722 audio codecs, as well as the H.264 AVC video codec. That is, these are the very protocols that are supported by many third-party manufacturers of audio and video systems.
But there are serious differences in the signal protocol and transport.
Microsoft proprietary signal processing technologies provide full-duplex stereo echo cancellation, adaptive frequency deviation compensation, recovery or masking of lost packets, and audio priority over video, which ensures high quality audio and video communications under various network conditions. Some of these functions are available in the terminals, some require cloud services, that is, for efficient operation, the terminal and the service must be synchronized.
Now many alternative solutions support the same codecs, provide noise reduction, error correction, and more. So why did Microsoft, in fact, cut off access to Teams for third-party audio and video solutions? Microsoft claims that it introduced many innovations for Teams, but these advanced features require constant updates from both Teams and the client. Third-party software and video technologies in this case greatly reduce the quality of communication to the least general possibilities. This kills Microsoft’s aspirations to provide users with access to improved features and a uniform user experience across devices: PCs, tablets, smartphones, landlines and video devices. At the Enterprise Connect 2018 conference, Microsoft gave examples of these enhanced features:
- Voice conference management with Cortana
- Microsoft Graph, which will help determine the likely interlocutor, and when connecting artificial intelligence can throw up the files under discussion or even offer to appoint a new meeting
- Transfer
- Real time audio recording and transcription
- Room scanning, people recognition and appropriate framing and camera pointing
What next?
So, Microsoft uncompromisingly requires that its software be pre-installed on third-party devices. Now let's find out which of your devices with Skype for Business installed will now work with Teams, and more importantly, which ones will not .
Skype for Business and Teams compatibility
Skype for Business and Teams users can exchange instant messages between their respective client applications. From a phone that has Skype for Business installed, or from a client, you can directly call a Teams user and vice versa. However, this compatibility works only for point-to-point calls. Group conferences and chats are available only to users within one of the solutions.
Incoming and outgoing connections in public switched telephone networks (PSTN)
All incoming and outgoing calls between Teams and PSTN subscribers go through the session border controller (SBC). Microsoft now supports SBC from AudioCodes, Ribbon Communications and ThinkTel. Of course, if you are calling through Microsoft programs, you do not need your SBC. But if you have your own PSTN connection directly through the provider via SIP highways or through highways connected to cloudy or local PBXs, you will need your own SBC.
Microsoft has reported that some telephony service providers in different countries are developing Teams-compatible PSTN communications. Microsoft called them “direct routing.”
How to use third-party phones (3PIP) with Skype for Business installed for working with Teams
If you purchased a Skype for Business 3PIP phone certified for use, then Microsoft has built in the next-generation communication service gateways that allow your device to work with Teams.
Moreover, some 3PIP-phones work under Android. Updates come to such devices, thanks to which it will be possible to use new features of Teams as they become available. More specifically, these phones will launch an application that uses the stack of new Microsoft protocols to connect to Teams directly without gateways. 3PIP devices running on other operating systems will not receive updates with new Teams features. Updates can get 3PIP devices AudioCodes C450HD, Crestron Mercury, Polycom Trio and Yealink CP960, T56 and T58. These manufacturers will launch phones with native support from Teams in 2019.
Skype Room Systems (SRS) and Surface Hub
Microsoft promises that updates will come to any Skype Room Systems (SRS) partner devices that will turn these devices into Teams terminals. After that, they will constantly receive updates for Teams as they are released. All devices with Surface Hub will also receive updates that will make Teams work possible.
Gateways connecting traditional VKS terminals to Teams
Microsoft selected three partners — BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom, to ensure compatibility between standard video teleconferencing terminals (VTC) and Teams. These solutions are very similar, but there are some differences. All of their services are only available in the Microsoft Azure cloud and are used to interact with the next-generation Teams interface of the Microsoft API. They mainly provide signaling gateways and media gateways between video terminals and Teams.
Although Microsoft supports integration with standard terminals, but with some neglect. The fact is that user interaction there is not the same as in Teams. On video terminals, it looks more like Skype for Business — several video streams, the ability to show a screen and see what is shown on the screen.
For example, BlueJeans offers BlueJeans Gateway for Teams (BlueJeans Gateway for Teams) - a service available through the Azure cloud. This gateway can be purchased separately, that is, without the need to purchase any BlueJeans services. The beta version of the solution is being tested by partners participating in the Microsoft Technology Adoption Program (TAP). In BlueJeans believe that it will be available by the end of the summer. BlueJeans Gateway for Teams will be available from the Microsoft store, directly from BlueJeans or from a Microsoft sales partner. Most likely, versions will be available for both personal and collective use. The service can be configured through the Office 365 admin panel.
Information about connecting to a conference using BlueJeans Gateway for Teams can be automatically distributed via a conference invitation. The link “Connect to Video Room” contains the address of the terminal.
To connect to the Teams conference, the video room of the meeting room calls the gateway directly, using the information specified in the invitation, or BlueJeans transmits the connection information directly to the terminal through its control program. If the terminal supports the connection “one button”, then it can be turned on with one touch, or activated via the touch panel controller.
Pexip solution allows organizations to use a dedicated copy of Pexip Gateway for Teams in the Azure cloud. Pexip will manage your copy of the gateway as part of a suite of services. But in this case, you will have to pay for the processing required for its work in Azure.
Polycom RealConnect is a multi-tenant (multitenant) solution running in the Azure cloud. The cost includes all processing in Azure. RealConnect is currently in beta testing with several Microsoft TAP members.
Cisco, Lifesize and Zoom
Judging by the way it looks now, Cisco, Lifesize, Zoom and any other video calling services will not be able to interact with Teams at all (the workaround will be described below) if you do not have a solution with a gateway from one of the three partners mentioned above.
StarLeaf Teams Compatibility
StarLeaf offers a solution for interacting with Teams, but Microsoft does not support it, although it reports that compatibility with this solution can be provided with the release of Teams updates.
I tried to understand why Microsoft objects to the StarLeaf implementation. It seemed reasonable to me. It works like this: StarLeaf deploys the full version of Teams on a Windows virtual machine that boots on top of the Linux kernel running on a StarLeaf video terminal. The StarLeaf Maestro control program also runs on Linux. Maestro has access to Microsoft Exchange and sees the room schedule or individual user schedule. When a Teams conference is assigned to this terminal (for Skype for Business, this scheme also works, by the way), Maestro uses the Teams API to automatically connect Teams to the conference. Simultaneously, Teams video content is sent via the API to the StarLeaf screen. The StarLeaf user does not see the Teams user interface.
The StarLeaf Teams solution is based on the Linux kernel. A Windows virtual machine is installed on top of it, which runs both Teams and Skype for Business client applications. Teams video content is displayed, but the Teams user interface cannot be seen.
Microsoft on this occasion states that StarLeaf distributes the Teams client on their devices without confirmed authorization. They require authorization from all companies to make sure that the distributed software is safe, legal and updated to the latest version. By distributing Microsoft software without authorization, StarLeaf, in their opinion, confuses users, because users who acquire this software will not receive Microsoft support.
However, it seems to me that since StarLeaf uses a genuine Teams client with a license purchased by the user, and this client can be updated using standard Microsoft tools, technically this solution should work fine.
Microsoft claims that StarLeaf uses in its software such methods of control over the Teams application that Microsoft did not develop or support. Perhaps if Microsoft changes the basic functionality or interface of Teams, the StarLeaf solution will stop working. But in this case, other solutions “approved” by Microsoft may also stop working.
Polycom trio
At InfoComm, I explored the Polycom Trio interface for audio and video communication through Teams.
Trio, compatible with Teams, works on Android, and as a result it works with Android, modified by Microsoft for its partners. Since Microsoft software is running there, Trio can connect directly with Teams. But only for audio communication.
With video calls all smarter. When running Trio Visual + with Teams, video content passes through the Polycom RealConnect gateway in the Azure cloud.
Trio connects directly to Teams during audio communication. When the Trio Visual + package is used for video communication, audio and video streams go through the Polycom RealConnect service to Azure and then go to Teams.
Microsoft claims that this technology is not certified and is not supported. I do not know why Microsoft thinks so. When Trio Visual + is used with Teams, audio and video streams pass through the Polycom RealConnect gateway, which they have certified and supported. In this sense, video communication works in the same way as on any other video terminal. Just the interface is not so well developed, which is annoying to Microsoft. So, despite the fact that Microsoft does not certify and does not support this solution, it works and it is quite inventive.
Cisco and Zoom bots for Teams
What should Cisco or Zoom users do? It turns out that both companies have developed bots for Teams that run their solutions.
With the help of these bots, you can invite participants to a video conference from the correspondence in Teams. The chat contains a link that, when clicked, launches Cisco Webex or the Zoom application.
Example of compatibility of third-party solutions with Teams through the bot. The bots place the link in the Teams chat, which when clicked, launches Cisco Webex or the video zoom solution Zoom.
The only certified and supported Teams devices
Microsoft insists that only those devices that have Microsoft software installed can directly work with Teams. This year ( in 2018 - a comment of the Video + Conference editor ) is expected to release new IP phones with Android and the pre-installed Teams application. Customers on these phones will receive updates directly from Microsoft as they are released.
The only terminals supported and certified for direct integration with Teams are the Skype Room System (SRS) and Surface Hub devices. Of course, Microsoft approved the above-mentioned gateways for video terminals from BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom. Anything else Microsoft does not support. By the way, I don’t know why Microsoft still uses the Skype Room System brand ... I’ve been waiting for it to turn into the Teams Room System a long time ago, but time will tell. ( Microsoft announced rebranding on January 23, 2019 - Editor's Note )
Polycom at one time developed group video terminals compatible with Skype for Business. This is a line of Polycom MSR. Now they will work with Teams. Phones from Polycom Teams will appear in early 2019, and I think Polycom will present some group video terminals for Teams, but so far there have been no statements about this.
We also need to keep in mind that Microsoft now supports WebRTC. Conference participants who do not have Teams installed can connect via WebRTC. This feature will appear first in the Microsoft Edge browser, but immediately after it will be available in other browsers that support WebRTC (Chrome, Firefox, and, of course, Safari).
Conclusion
Microsoft is clearly going to put an end to a variety of third-party unsupported solutions. This forces partners and end users to sweat to make the device or software work with Teams. Although, if you look from the other side, where Microsoft is looking from, Teams is a new dynamic environment for working together with great opportunities, the number of which will grow all the time. New features will require some changes in the cloud and on the side of client programs. Therefore, Microsoft should be able to simultaneously upgrade both services and client applications to ensure the best quality of communications and communications. Any compromise will lead to a deterioration in user experience and thus to the least common possibilities. BlueJeans, Pexip, and Polycom solutions for interacting with terminals confirm this.
Video terminals on which Teams is not installed provide access to very few platform features. User experience management seems to be becoming a common and growing area of ​​focus in the industry. So, Cisco with its Webex Teams is trying to improve interaction by controlling the user interface. And, like Microsoft, it supports the WebRTC version of its client, which provides work with video terminals.
Zoom, in turn, expands its own solution for video conferencing. Zoom not only supports videoconferencing terminals from other manufacturers, but also developed its own Zoom Room software for group video conferencing, a PC client (but not based on WebRTC) and clients for mobile devices.
What can I say about all this?
I use video ... very often. Mostly from my PC, but on my desktop there is still a SIP-based videophone that supports 1080p resolution, and I use Skype for Business (via Office 365) on my PC. However, now I also use Webex Teams to communicate with Cisco employees, and Microsoft Teams to communicate with people from Microsoft.
I hate downloading new clients and is known for saying to many vendors that if their systems do not support Skype for Business or WebRTC, I will not participate in conferences with them (except for audio calls), simply because I don’t want to trash my computer a bunch of new applications.
Nevertheless, in our industry, there is a tendency, at least for major developers, to provide a full-featured solution with improved user experience and advanced features. Only for access to it, you need to install the client from a specific vendor on all devices - be it a PC or solutions for negotiations. And even on third-party peripherals (for example, phones), the software of this vendor must be running.
I was hoping that with the help of WebRTC it would be possible to overcome the need for specific client applications and we would only need a browser as an interface. In this case, the browser will be a common interface for all types of communications and services. Of course, WebRTC has some limitations, but recently Cisco said that in the new version of the Webex WebRTC client, users will have a full range of opportunities for collaboration.
Each developer must clearly position his proposal, and one of the criteria is a set of functions in the applications. To provide the best user experience and access to basic functionality, a vendor must monitor both client applications and cloud services. This direction is headed by Microsoft along with Teams and integration solutions. And whether we like it or not, we are moving in this direction and we are all together with other vendors. I tell my customers: now is the best time to think about the migration of your communications and work environment to a single solution from one specific vendor.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/455489/
All Articles