[Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?

[Tom Rymes]

[snip]

> > as well as the software, while the Polycoms can be
> > centrally managed via TFTP/FTP/HTTP/HTTPS, etc.
> 
> You mean: getting close to almost barely good enough to be as 
> managable as a local software?

No, I mean, if I have 50 extensions, I can create one config file,
arrange it however I need on the server, and manage the 50 phones from
my desk via ssh, etc. With softphones, I will have to get up and walk to
each desk to change settings if I need to.

> Unless your OS has a really really high TCO to manage, those 
> hardware phones are much more of a pain at that point.

Again, I think this is true if you have 1-5 phones, but if you have 50+,
I think not! This isn't even considering that you might have phones in
remote locations, such as one of our branch ofices that is 3+ hours
away. Central phone config means that I can make a change at 8:00PM and
all of my users will have received it when the offices open in the AM,
but softphones means I would have to remind everyone to leave their PCs
on so I could remotely change the software config via VNC, and I don't
evenknow if I would have to worry about user profiles having different
settings, which would introduce another level of complexity. Of course,
I could then set up centrally managed PCs, a la LTSP, but that's more of
an undertaking than most want!

[snip]

> > >I agree, your boss will judge the system based on is 
> experience with 
> > >it. So don't skim on the quality if you want to keep him happy.
> > 
> > This is why I think that it is worth the extra $50 or so for the
> > cheaper hardphones. 
> 
> OTOH, there is the false logic that "just because you didn't 
> pay enough for it, means its quality is low". For instance, 
> on typical mainframe 
> installation, people spend much more on basically the same 
> thing. This is because they've already payed the 1,000,000$ 
> for the system, and are used to pay a bit more for accesories.

Agreed, the "you get what you pay for" statement isn't always true, but
I think it is, at least for most business situations, especially those
with lower-tech workers (ie: not Power-users who will learn the special
key shorcuts, etc.)

[snip]

> Summary: I'm not sure soft phones are there yet, but I 
> suspect they will be "good enough" for more and more people.

I have to agree with you here, but I also think we'll have to agree to
disagree on other points! Basically, it all depends on your situation,
but for me, and I think that for most business users, small, medium, or
large, the reasonable minor additional cost of a hardphone will be worth
it.

Tom