JAJAH.Babel real time translation launches

Various styles of Chinese calligraphy.Image via Wikipedia

JAJAH.Babel just launched a few minutes ago.  It’s a simple service that puts a translator on the other end of the phoneline.  Developed in conjunction with IBM Research, JAJAH.Babel lets you call a local number in China, the US, the UK and Australia, speak a message in Chinese or English, and hear a corresponding translation.  You can even carry on a conversation between two parties by handing the telephone back and forth with each party speaking in their own language.

To give it a try in North America:

  1. Dial +1.718.513.2969
  2. Choose which language you want your message translated into (either English to Chinese or Chinese to English
  3. Say your message and press #
  4. You will be able to confirm that your message was properly understood by the system.
  5. The message will automatically be played back in Chinese. If you wish, simply hand your phone to the other person or put the phone on loudspeaker so they hear the message.
  6. The other person can then record a message in Chinese, following the steps above, and you will hear their message in English

I tried it.  I can’t evaluate the quality of the translation, but the call itself was crystal clear, and what came back certainly sounded like authentic Chinese to me.

Slick.  Really slick.  I’m impressed, team JAJAH!

And in related news, JAJAH also unveiled a partnership with MOBIVOX — the JAJAH Concierge.  That’s two voice recognition applications in one day from JAJAH.  A trend in the making?

Zemanta Pixie
  • Share/Save/Bookmark

2008-08-07 12:16 am | 1 Comment »

Tags: ||||

VoIP Magazine on MS Unified Communications

Bryan Richards, editor-in-chief of VoIP Magazine.com, has a go at Microsoft’s Unified Communications Strategy.  In main, he wonders about the value, writing:

“It’s all very interesting technology but seems a bit much to make a phone call even if it is just to leave a voice mail.”

and…

“making a phone ring when someone is at their desk is helpful, but its far from a revolution in productivity.”

It’s hard to disagree, and that’s the reason I called the announcement a damp squib. It’s the intersection of the fundamentals of presence and business processes that will provide the value that customers are looking for.  That intersection will happen in three phases:

  1. implementation of presence infrastructure – the servers, etc that are capable of managing presence information.
  2. automation of presence setting – relieving human beings of the necessity to set and review presence status.  If this step doesn’t happen, nobody will use presence.
  3. new applications dependent on presence.

An example I know well, obviously, is the iotum relevance engine.  It performs many of the functions of a human assistant, in respect of managing telephone calls.  It is dependent on presence, and both uses and performs automated presence setting. With the presence feature (and many other sources of input) it is able to predict the relevance of a communications request, and your likelihood to want to take that call.  The fact that it can ring the correct phone is merely the icing on the cake.

Presence, by itself, is a hard sell. It doesn’t indicate anything about the users receptivity to a communications request.  It simply reflects physicality.  And that’s why presence, as implemented today, is broken.  The tragedy is that many people are turning the feature off, because their only experience of it is IM which can be as large a productivity drain as email.  Its potential is still waiting in the wings.

Microsoft’s announcements, while interesting, are about infrastructure and automation.  They’re not yet about changing the world, and, won’t be able to even begin until late 2007.  If you’re interested in experiencing what that world can be like today, check out offerings from Communigate, or from their hosted partner, Versature, here in Ottawa.  Versature will also be making the iotum Relevance Engine available to their customers shortly.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

2006-06-30 7:36 am | 3 Comments »

Tags: ||||||||

Mail from Microsoft’s Kyle Marsh

A couple of days after I wrote Microsoft’s Unified Communications “Strategy”, I got a nice note from Kyle Marsh, unified communications evangelist. He gave some additional details about the products, as well as correcting a mistake I made. I understood that Exchange would be renamed Microsoft Communcations Server, which in fact is not the case. He also invited us to participate in a developer lab in Redmond at the end of the month.

I found his discussion of the use of the Subject field quite interesting. We’ve been fans of using extended SIP attributes as inputs to the iotum Relevance Engine for some time. It’s great to see this happening.

Thanks for the email Kyle. (reprinted below, with permission, for those interested in knowing more).

 

From: Kyle Marsh [mailto:Kyle.Marsh@microsoft.com] Sent: June-28-06 2:30 PMTo: Alec SaundersSubject: Microsoft Unified Communications

Hi Alec,

        Been quite a while since we touched based. I have two reasons for emailing. First I am having a developer lab for our next wave of product releases July 24-27 here in Redmond. Would iotum be interested in attending? It is a API level lab.  We have some interesting new features that could make integrating iotum and our unified communications more interesting. For example, when someone sees an email they may want to respond with an IM or voice or video conversation instead. In Outlook they would select “Call’ and the subject or the email would be sent as part of the invite so that the user being called could see the call’s subject before accepting the call. Other applications could start communications the same way. I think that a call’s subject would help iotum determine the call’s relevance.  We expect that in the 2007 timeframe all requests for communications, regardless of them media type IM, voice, video, email, etc., will start taking advantage of this ability.

Second I noticed something on your blog I thought I should update you on. We are not renaming Exchange to Communications Server. These will continue to be two products. As we move forward they will start to take advantage of each other’s features more. For example in 2007 if you start a voice conversation with another user from Communicator (or any device) you may end up leaving voice mail in Exchange’s unified messaging. Today your PC-PC voice call would just not get answered. You may be underestimating what we are doing and scale of our commitment in this space.  The most concise description of what we are doing is in the BillG exec mail:

The arrival of unified communications signals the beginning of the convergence of VoIP telephony (which provides the ability to route telephone calls through the Internet), email, instant messaging, mobile communications, and audio and video Web conferencing into a single platform that shares a common directory and common developer tools.

So iotum and Microsoft decide to federate, or let their infrastructures automatically federate. Now we can have each other on a contact list, or maybe just have each other’s names in a Word document. If we need to  communicate it is just a click away. Each participant can decided what form the communication can take IM, voice, video, conference, etc. Maybe we use our PCs, or phones, or even mobile devices.  We call each other, not each other’s devices. Perhaps iotum could not just decide if I should take the communication, but what mode I could allow. If I am in my office I could take a voice call with you on my desk phone, but in a meeting, depending on what my role in the meeting is, perhaps I could do an IM from a PC or mobile device.  I could classify you to receive different amounts of presence information about me then other people see. My team member could be allowed to see my location, or maybe the subject of the email I am working on right now, or the identity of who I am currently communicating with (trading floors need that actually) while you as a federated contact may see simply “Busy”.  iotum could start adding information to my presence that would help an iotum at the other end make a better judgment about the relevance of a communications request.  At the platform level we are enabling a lot of cool scenarios.

Anyway, enough rambling on my part. Let me know if you would like to participant in the developer lab.  I see you are making lots of announcements lately and wining lots of awards. Congratulations. It is great to see good ideas succeed.

Thanks

Kyle

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

2006-06-29 10:34 pm | 4 Comments »

Tags: |||||||

Microsoft’s Unified Communications “Strategy”

For the last week, I’ve been wondering what Microsoft would announce today, at their Microsoft Unified Communications Group Strategy Day (what a mouthful, eh?). You see, ever since Ina Fried wrote her piece titled Microsoft Aims to End ‘Phone Tag’ on News.com, people have been phoning me and asking what I thought of it. My guess was that there was more than a little hyperbole in the announcement – after all, phone tag is caused by the precise fact that people don’t want to be reached at a particular time. No piece of technology is going to change that.

Moreover, Steve Ballmer has been telegraphing the company’s intent on this for a while. Last December he told an Ottawa audience that “In 10 years time, your telephone will know which calls are important to take.” I sent him mail afterward congratulating him on our shared vision. And, I offered to give them a hand. After all, when it comes to that particular vision, iotum has a little bit of expertise.  It’s what we do — make your phone ring when it’s important to take the call, and have the call handled some other way when it can wait… Since we started coming out of stealth in the fall of last year, we’ve been named Product of the Year by Internet Telephony, DEMOgod at Spring DEMO 2006, been one of the Business 2.0 Next Net 25, one of the Branham Group’s Top 25 IT Up and Comers, and most recently we were given the 3M Canada Company Emerging Technology Award as the top emerging technology company in Canada.

So naturally, with all the hoop-de-doo last week, it made me wonder how close to Steve’s “10 year vision” the company has gotten.

In this morning’s Microsoft Plans to Blend Phones With Computers, John Markoff revealed a little more information, positioning the announcement as essentially a rebranding of Exchange, and Microsoft as late to the field. It began to feel a little disappointing after the buildup. Indeed, judging by the fact that none of the products announced will be available until Q2 2007, there is a certain feel of desperation in their strategy. A cynic might accuse them of spreading a little FUD to freeze the market for a bit. That was the view of some others, too:

“We’ve been far ahead of Microsoft in these technologies,” said Ken Bisconti, I.B.M.’s vice president for workplace, portal and collaboration products, speaking from Cambridge, Mass.

“Microsoft might have realized that there are a lot of people who have seen this idea,” said Mark Spencer, president of Digium. “They want to get the message out there that they have a strategy.”

Ouch, Mark… that’s harsh!

When the announcement came, it was a damp squib. Microsoft will rename Exchange Live Communication Server as Communications Server, and add telephony features to Communicator, and other products. It’s an integration announcement, as opposed to a dramatic new direction — a reprise of the 1993 announcement that created Microsoft Office out of Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. Interestingly, this tactic may backfire for them this time around. Today there’s much more focus on open standards. The idea that you must buy all of your infrastructure from a single vendor just isn’t palatable for many companies today. Certainly, that is the view expressed by TMC’s Tom Keating in his coverage of today’s announcements.

If there’s any take away from this event, I would argue that it’s that Microsoft has PBX manufacturers squarely in its sights. In fact, at the event this afternoon, Microsoft VP Anoop Gupta even acknowledged that the company expected some customers would abandon their PBX’s in favour of server based solutions. At the CTO level in most major PBX manufacturers organizations, there is recognition that the infrastructure components are becoming a commodity. With Asterisk, and other open source PBX products out there, there is simply no need to spend 10’s of thousands of dollars on a proprietary Nortel, Avaya, or Mitel PBX. This is forcing PBX manufacturers to go through a very similar process of introspection to carriers. As one high level exec at one of these manufacturers told me, “Open Source is forcing us to focus on value added applications”. Well, Open Source isn’t the only issue. Add Microsoft to the mix now. Add IBM too, because immediately following Microsoft’s announcements, IBM made their own announcements, including the fact that they were partnering with several Microsoft competitors, and would ship by this summer, a full three quarters ahead of Microsoft.

Today’s proprietary PBX manufacturers are like the proprietary word processor manufacturers of 30 years ago. Some survived by moving to the PC platform, but most (does anybody remember Wang, for instance?), failed. Hopefully they’ve learned the lessons of yore…

Does this impact iotum? Not really. First, Microsoft is playing exclusively in enterprise, and we’re not. Moreover, none of these products will ship for another year. And, perhaps most tellingly, they likely have swiped a few of our ideas, but the implementation is, frankly, simplistic. No doubt it will improve, but that will be sometime after the 2007 launch.

From the Microsoft Communicator Fact Sheet, there is a short paragraph buried deep in the document:

Enhanced presence awareness and control. Communicator 2007 provides users with granular control over their presence information; for example, a company CEO can define who in her address book can see her availability and presence. Communicator 2007 also recognizes presence information for remote team members, partners and customers over a broad range of devices, applications and networks.

Microsoft VP Anoop Gupta provided more detail in the Q&A, when one gentleman stood to ask a question about why applications can’t do more sophisticated things with presence. Anoop answered that:

  1. Applications are starting to automate the setting of presence – when you set the Out of Office message in Outlook, it will set presence to away. Get on the telephone, and presence will set to on the phone. How, however, do you deal with users that you want to express different states to – busy to my boss, but available to my wife?
  2. Applications are starting to give users more control over their reachability, doing a better job of helping users to preserve privacy. Communications Server will allow users to have up to four levels of privacy – for example: immediate colleagues, divisional, across the company, and so on. Differing amounts of information might be revealed, depending on the relationship. What part of my organization does my family belong in, I wonder? That, of course, is the peril of a strictly hierarchical relationship system.
  3. Presence itself will be a platform component built on an XML infrastructure, and customizable by third parties.

In fact, I think that Microsoft’s entry has the potential to be very good for iotum. It validates what we’re doing, but their vision is still a “10 year vision” — so far away that there’s no near term threat. If anything, it could trigger a wave of consolidation in the nascent VoIP apps business as competitors snap up smaller players like iotum and Tello in order to buttress themselves against the eventual Microsoft assault.

In the meantime, it’s probably time to dust off the LCS integration we did last summer. It’s great that Steve and Anoop share our vision, but it looks as if the folks in Redmond are going to need some help to achieve it.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

2006-06-26 8:44 pm | 9 Comments »

Tags: ||||||||

Free Software, to a Point

Free Software, at Least to a Certain Point.  The free software foundation holds a dinner and passes the hat, collecting $6,000 to keep the thing going.  Why? "Mr. Stallman’s point, now supported by many thousands of programmers worldwide, is that software becomes better when more people can work on it. Recently, several companies, including I.B.M., Sun Microsystems and Red Hat, have started trying to make money on that premise by selling software and technical support for Linux, the main competitor to Microsoft’s Windows."

This is just so much baloney.  Linux is demonstrably not better than Windows.  It’s more difficult to use, supports fewer devices, and uses an outdated kernel architecture (even Linus admits that he should have written a microkernel).  Furthermore, a business built on service margins cannot compete effectively with a business built on IP margins.  Red Hat is still in business is because they live off the good will of the open source programmers that aren’t on their payroll.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

2002-09-23 4:00 am | Comments Off

Tags: ||||||