Skype for Business Reviews

Skype for Business and PSTN Conferencing. Our users are using this add-on license to perform internal and external web and audio conferences for between two and 200 users.

We like the easy provisioning of Skype for Business Conferencing. Also, we like the tools our administrator can use to identify which calls had quality issues and why. This makes troubleshooting our user experience somewhat easier.

• We overcame the audio quality issues by asking users to use the 'Call Me' feature with their desk phone. 
• We would like to better customize our instructions within the Outlook plugin/invite, but we are unable to do so. 
• Our user base has struggled for adoption, as using Skype audio is not a very consistent experience due to the diverse networks that they are on (home office, corporate office, and branch office networks).

We have been able to save money by moving our conferencing solution to Skype for Business Conferencing. 

IM, Presence, P2P audio video calls, Conferencing.

Optimizes our network, encourages adoption, standardizes optimized headsets, strong change management, mobility.

Make the Skype applications work with unified end user computing. For example, so that Apple headsets can be used. Instead of optimizing some headsets, it would be helpful to get into OS to optimize the application.

Five years.

Yes.

Yes.

Five out of 10.

No.

Complex.

It depends on your infrastructure. There is value in using Skype only when your organization is Microsoft shop.

Cisco.

Look at your end users and computing needs and find a suitable solution for them.

We primarily use the solution for business purposes. We use it for virtual meetings. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The deployment is very fast.

It needs to be easier to use. The product is very heavy. It's very unmanageable. It used to take up a lot of memory of my computer system. 

There are not many options, in terms of some other third-party integration. The adoption of Zoom primarily spiked during the pandemic and is sort of better. This solution is now being used much less.

The solution isn't scalable.

I've been dealing with the solution for one and a half years so far. 

The solution is very stable and unmanageable. 

The product doesn't really scale all that well.

We have about a hundred users on the solution. 

I don't have any experience with technical support. I can't speak to how they are in terms of helpfulness or responsiveness. 

I'm also familiar with Microsoft Teams or Zoom.

The initial setup is not overly difficult. It's pretty straightforward in general. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment is also quick and only takes a minute or so.

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need the help of any consultants or integrators.

While it's my understanding that users would need to pay for a license, I have no visibility on the costs involved. 

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten.

I wouldn't really recommend the solution to other users or organizations. I'd rather suggest Zoom or Microsoft Teams, which are better options.

I have used this software since 2014. You can do meetings with your employees, and employees outside of your company.

It has a very easy setup, it's easy to use and can be configured on any device. Everything gets recorded on an exchange server, so you don't have to worry about recording meetings and conversations.

It improves travel time for our employees and cost. It can be used on your 4G LTE connection easily. It has also improved manpower productivity.

You can do meetings of up to two hundred people in a single conversation. You can share your desktop with all meeting attendees at the same instant.

There is normal interface of software,it should be user friendly and eye catchy.Nothing esle and i cannot explain much.

The most valuable feature is the ease of organizing and setting up a meeting.

It is integrated with my Outlook, which is helpful.

The quality of the meetings is very good.

We need a feature where you can virtually raise your hand to silently let the presenter know that you have a question.

I have been using Skype for Business for between five and seven years.

The meetings can easily be expanded. Once you have the link you can push it, even in a WhatsApp group, to have all of your invitees become part of the meeting. The typical meeting for me is about 30 people.

We have begun using Microsoft Teams in place of Skype for Business and it is very good for collaboration. However, it is also missing the "raise hand" feature.

The initial setup was not difficult for me. 

My understanding is that Skype for Business will be retired in July of 2021, so I am in the process of migrating to Teams.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Voice quality improvement, especially when used for over 40 minutes.

File sharing and email invitations for a conference. I can have a meeting with  people at the opposite end of the Earth, sharing documentation; it is quite easy.

Click to call: I should be able to make a desktop phone call when I click a member of my directory. There are other applications that enable making calls by clicking in the Lync directory.

Rarely, a chat message is sent very slowly.

No scalability issues.

Good.

I didn't set it up.

I rate it eight out of 10. It is generally very good to work with using chat or web meetings. It would be a 10 if I could make a call by clicking in the directory in Lync.