<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Web 2.0 Going To Trump Unified Communications?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/</link>
	<description>Tracking UC, Virtutalization, Security, Web 2.0  All Day and All Night</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Furrier</title>
		<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/#comment-313</link>
		<dc:creator>John Furrier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://broaddev.com/?p=78#comment-313</guid>
		<description>Great ping from BroadSoft.  Alex Doyle has a good post over there at BroadSoft.com.

I am suggesting that UC shouldn’t be a closed solution from one vendor. In fact I see it that the hosting piece is critical for the customers to define their service modules. Having a bolted on fully integrated services isn’t the future. The hosting side is very exciting.

Web 2.0 is not fully understood but from a practical perspective the ‘lock-in’ in UC isn’t viable long term.

BroadDev blog picked the categories to cover UC, Virtualization, Security, and Web 2.0 because to me UC cuts across all those areas. We are so beyond PBX solutions in this arena.

Companies shouldn’t be forced into a choice they should choose the best for their environment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great ping from BroadSoft.  Alex Doyle has a good post over there at BroadSoft.com.</p>
<p>I am suggesting that UC shouldn’t be a closed solution from one vendor. In fact I see it that the hosting piece is critical for the customers to define their service modules. Having a bolted on fully integrated services isn’t the future. The hosting side is very exciting.</p>
<p>Web 2.0 is not fully understood but from a practical perspective the ‘lock-in’ in UC isn’t viable long term.</p>
<p>BroadDev blog picked the categories to cover UC, Virtualization, Security, and Web 2.0 because to me UC cuts across all those areas. We are so beyond PBX solutions in this arena.</p>
<p>Companies shouldn’t be forced into a choice they should choose the best for their environment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BroadDev - Unified Communications, Virtualization, Security, and Web 2.0 &#187; Unified Communications - Is it Happening? or Is it Just Web 2.0</title>
		<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/#comment-312</link>
		<dc:creator>BroadDev - Unified Communications, Virtualization, Security, and Web 2.0 &#187; Unified Communications - Is it Happening? or Is it Just Web 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://broaddev.com/?p=78#comment-312</guid>
		<description>[...] Another blogger Alex Doyle at BroadSoft (not to be confused with BroadDev - this blog) weights in with a good analysis from my blog post on web 2.0 and Unified Communications. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Another blogger Alex Doyle at BroadSoft (not to be confused with BroadDev - this blog) weights in with a good analysis from my blog post on web 2.0 and Unified Communications. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The BroadSoft Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Unified Communications without Web 2.0 is just a Walled Garden of a Different Color</title>
		<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/#comment-311</link>
		<dc:creator>The BroadSoft Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Unified Communications without Web 2.0 is just a Walled Garden of a Different Color</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://broaddev.com/?p=78#comment-311</guid>
		<description>[...] John Furrier at BroadDev asks, I think, the right question: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] John Furrier at BroadDev asks, I think, the right question: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Furrier</title>
		<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>John Furrier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://broaddev.com/?p=78#comment-300</guid>
		<description>Ted,
Thanks for commenting. I found that quote to be a bit over the top and unverified.  Most people don't know that IBM internally is highly connected.  

What also is interesting is how the quote is used to make IBM look irrelevant.  Not fair by infoworld.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ted,<br />
Thanks for commenting. I found that quote to be a bit over the top and unverified.  Most people don&#8217;t know that IBM internally is highly connected.  </p>
<p>What also is interesting is how the quote is used to make IBM look irrelevant.  Not fair by infoworld.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Stanton</title>
		<link>http://broaddev.com/2008/07/14/is-web-20-going-to-trump-unified-communications/#comment-299</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted Stanton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:56:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://broaddev.com/?p=78#comment-299</guid>
		<description>Just to clarify, IBM has more Lotus Connections profiles inside IBM (over 500K) then they have on LinkedIn.  The reason is all IBMers automatically get a Connections profiles while LinkedIn is opt-in.  There is one major difference between social networking inside the organization vs consumer driven sites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to clarify, IBM has more Lotus Connections profiles inside IBM (over 500K) then they have on LinkedIn.  The reason is all IBMers automatically get a Connections profiles while LinkedIn is opt-in.  There is one major difference between social networking inside the organization vs consumer driven sites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
