"...Their Product revolves around clearer, cheaper communication worldwide, with greater back end control all from one central account, right?
Technology they felt was worth protecting. .."
Understood. The question is, are companies screaming out for this?
"..Ive dealt with all three majors in Australia on a corporate account level and none of them have the back end features NOR have. .."
Maybe so, is the reason that they dont need/want this. ie: the cost to administer down to this level is not required, for the effort put in? Just a thought.
"...Big brother stuff and absolutely exactly the kind of control many companies overseas in particular want.
Yes there are other products out there that can do a bit of this and a bit of that, and plenty that are free...which backpackers and travellers love. .."
The problem is with all three markets in my opinion;
1.
Backpackers and cheak-skates. Not going to want to pay for quality as you say, too many free or nearly free alternatives. Probably don't care about number portability.
2.
Domestic mobile usage. Companies simply don't care. Its as simple as that. When they can acquire an all you can consume mobile service for under $30 a month, why would you faff around with a dollar or two here and there. No need to restrict spend, report on use if its only $1 a day. That's an insignificant line item for 'enterprise customers'.
And if its too complicated, personal reimbursement will achieve the same effect. Company gives employee $500 more a year.. They are happy, covers their phone bill. Company is happy, all mobile needs sorted.
3.
So we move to global overseas roaming. Again, its a solution vs potential customer problem imo. Global roaming is expensive, but I suspect that of all the huge multi-nationals, not a whole lot of their staff travel overseas, at least routinely.
And here's the crunch. Those that do, would simply not accept using such a clunky system (in my experience dealing with international travelling executives telephony requirements)
Sure, the interface to make and receive calls is slick, but they still cant;
- send or receive text message
- access mobile data in the country they are travelling in without horrendous global roaming data charges.
So they are left loitering around wifi-hotspots to make or receive a call. Or, they have to do what the company original explained was fiddly and a hassle .. buy a local sim with data. If you do the sim-swap you are almost back to square one!
All this balanced with the fact that for $5 vodafone, or $10 (optus/telstra) they can pay a capped daily amount. So for their 7 day trip they pay $70, pocket change (in the context of an international business trip) to be able to use their phone however they want. Take and place calls or messages, no change of behaviour, capped price. Even a bit of data thrown in as well.
And for integrated communications platforms whether landline, desktop, mobile they are up against sooo many other provides with many more features, that work, are proven, are cheap and heavily tied in with existing back-end and client software/systems. So the switching cost is just not worth it I suspect.
So that's the rub in my opinion. All this said, it doesn't mean that some business wont find some of the features useful and compelling. Some may very well sign up for it. To get enough customers, soon enough to stem the cash-burn and maybe one-day make a smidge of profit to return to shareholders though I suspect is a long stretch.
Then there is the dreamy wifi or financial services text-messaging service.. Would have really hoped that they could prove traction on one of their existing projects and ideas first, but here we find ourselves.
