Software Engineer at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

Feb 17, 2022

Download

Beneficial instant messaging, straightforward installation, but documentation needs improvement

Pros and Cons

"Skype for Business is good for meetings and instant messaging."

"Skype for Business could improve by having a document channel or repository. Microsoft Teams has a better repository place for documents that you can share with your team. You can access it anywhere from any device."

What is our primary use case?

We use Skype for Business for virtual meetings and messages.

What is most valuable?

Skype for Business is good for meetings and instant messaging.

What needs improvement?

Skype for Business could improve by having a document channel or repository. Microsoft Teams has a better repository place for documents that you can share with your team. You can access it anywhere from any device.

The documentation for Skype for Business could improve.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Skype for Business for approximately three years.

Buyer's Guide

Skype for Business

October 2024

Free Report: Skype for Business Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about Skype for Business. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Skype for Business is a stable solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of Skype for Business was good.

My company has many global employees, approximately 6,000 and everyone was using Skype for Business before we switched to Microsoft Teams.

How are customer service and support?

The technical support from Skype for Business was reliable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have used previously many other solutions, such as IBM and Microsoft Teams.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. It is not a complicated process.

What about the implementation team?

I did the implementation myself.

We did not have an explicit technical team from Skype for Business. We were using our local IT team of six engineers who was managing it in case of any issues.

What other advice do I have?

I would not recommend Skype for Business because Microsoft Teams has more features, a lightweight application that I access on my mobile. Additionally, I can chat with my teammates and anybody else in the organization. The document repository is useful. I have access to SharePoint which is easily available and I can access it from the mobile device at any time. If I was to compare Microsoft Teams and Skype for Business, I would recommend Microsoft Teams. However, if the only requirement is to have meetings, chats, or instant messaging, then Skype for Business is not a bad choice.

I rate Skype for Business a six out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user3483

Senior Consultant at Unify Square

Feb 27, 2018

How Much do I Have to Spend to Bring Microsoft Lync to My Company?

Disclaimer: the new version of Lync Server 2013, Skype for Business (SfB) Server 2015, has been released a few weeks ago. Licensing model is the same you had for Lync Server, with companies paying only Front End servers (i.e. the ones hosting user accounts and the core services for your infrastructure). SfB contains some new features, including support for Back End availability based on AlwaysOn groups. I will write a dedicated post asap.

The costs related to Microsoft Lync are something that I have talked about more than once but this is the first time I try to summarize information in a single document. I will limit my reflections to on-premises organizations, because as I am writing, Lync Online has no serious support for Enterprise Voice (i.e. VOIP) and this makes the Cloud version of Lync less flexible (and somewhat less interesting) than the more traditional, corporate deployment.

Your House, Your Rules

A starting point for all cost-related considerations is to understand which kind of service we need. Lync Server 2013 supports solutions ranging from a single, all-in-one box (with a mandatory Office Web Apps server required to share PowerPoint presentations) to hundreds of servers geographically dispersed. Let us list some parameters.

1. Number of Users

The first parameter you have to establish is the number of users that will require Lync services. Lync 2013 Standard Edition (S.E.), the aforementioned single box, is tested to support up to 5,000 users. Obviously, before you reach the 4,999th Lync enabled account, it could be a good idea to add a second Front End (the server that delivers core services to the users) or consider a Lync Enterprise Edition (E.E.) solution (more details on the two editions of Lync Server 2013 are explained in the next paragraph)

2. Required Availability

Second parameter will be the required level of availability. If we deem service continuity as required for any of the Lync features (especially if we are going to use Lync as our VOIP system), it should be in a high availability deployment. Lync pools support a feature called Pool Pairing, if we have at least a couple of Lync 2013 S.E. Front End servers in our infrastructure.

It is not an H.A. solution, but adds resiliency to the solution and it grants some degree of survivability to the voice users. In a paired pool, using a series of scripts, we are also able to fail-over and fail-back Lync users, restoring full functionality for them. A highly available solution requires the E.E. of Lync Server 2013.

Although there is no difference in the cost of licenses between S.E and E.E., to use Enterprise Edition you must have at least pool of three Front Ends connected to a separate SQL Server database (whereas S.E. uses a collocated SQL Server express at no additional cost).

A dedicated SQL infrastructure would also require a continuity solution, like clustering or mirroring. A well-known rule of thumb is if we need to provide high availability, then we need to remove any potential Single Point of Failure in the design.

Small, remote offices might also require (at least) voice survivability. For such a scenario, we have a dedicated implementation of Lync Server 2013, the Survivable Branch Appliances (SBA); these are less expensive than a full-blown Lync front-end server.

Note: SQL licensing for Lync Server 2013 has been deep dived in a good post from fellow MVP Thomas Poett in his blog Lync Server 2013: Lync Backend SQL Server Licensing http://lyncuc.blogspot.it/2014/01/lync-server-2013-lync-backend-sql.html

Availability requirements have an impact also on point 3 and 5 of this list.

3. Additional Servers

Lync requires some additional servers that have no additional cost from the Lync server licensing point of view but that add costs to acquire the base Operating System, hardware and so on.

At least a Lync 2013 Edge server and a reverse proxy are required to make our services available to users outside our corporate network
The only Lync role that requires a Lync server license is the Front End. All other additional roles like Mediation, Director and the aforementioned Edge are not subject to additional Lync server licensing
At least an Office Web Apps server is required (as I said before) if PowerPoint sharing is required
If we have high-availability requirements, the aforementioned services should be redundant through an edge pool, a highly-available reverse proxy and an Office Web Apps farm
Lync integrate with Exchange Unified Messaging (UM) for services like voice mail. Exchange will have its own requirements and costs, but we have to keep them in mind if we require UM-related services
A Lync 2013 E.E. pool requires a dedicated load balancer to balance certain type of traffic from the pool. This may be provided in the form of a physical or virtual appliance. Remembering SPoF, load balancer should also require an additional standby device for resiliency.

Note: Every Lync, Office Web Apps, SQL database and reverse proxy (if you are going to use a solution based on Windows Server) will require a license for the Operating System. You could use virtualization rights (Licensing for Virtual Environments https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx ) to keep costs down, but this aspect is to be included in the list

4. Client Licenses

For the following point, I will quote my free e-book Microsoft Lync Server 2013: Basic Administration (http://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/office/Lync-Server-2013-Basic-0a86824d )

Lync requires a CAL (Client Access License) for each user or machine that logs on to the server. CALs are of three types and each one is entitled to the use of a part of the features. Access to premium functionality is determined by adoption of the Standard CAL and then you have to add supplemental CALS, an Enterprise CAL and, for some additional features, a third license called Plus CAL (you may think to Enterprise CAL and Plus CAL as supplemental to the Standard CAL).

Standard CAL: offers IM (Instant Messaging) and Presence, as well as PC-PC audio and video communication
Enterprise CAL: the user can use multi-party Lync meetings (including Gallery View, a feature allowing up to five active video streams to be displayed at once)
Plus CAL: enables enterprise voice capabilities

5. Infrastructure costs

There are a couple of entries in the bill of materials not directly related to Lync, but that we have to consider anyway:

If we are going to use Lync Server 2013 as our telephony infrastructure, we will require access to the public telephony system. There are a lot of offers and solutions from hundreds of providers worldwide, so an exact cost estimation is tough to outline here. Granting high availability will raise the costs here too, adding mandatory backup lines in case of a failure on our provider’s side
Lync Server 2013 has a high level of security by default and requires digital certificates to function. While our internal infrastructure can work with a corporate Certification Authority (C.A.), if we plan to make our Lync services available to Internet users (and to federate them with external Unified Communication systems) we have to use commercial certificates from a well-known, third party C.A. The cost here is not something to underestimate, because digital certificates will have to be SAN with many alternative names inside. In addition, the more SIP domains we will manage with our Lync deployment, the more names we will need in the certificates, and certificate fees are likely to ramp-up further.

Summarizing

Now, as it is easy to understand from the previous list, there is no right answer to the starting question. I will try to focus a few points:

1.High Availability will raise the costs, as usual

2.Using Lync Enterprise Voice will add license and infrastructure costs (as well as making H.A. almost mandatory)

3.The number of users and their level of access to Lync’s features will impact budget both for the deployment sizing and for the needed client licenses

4.The bulk part of the expenditure items related to a Lync deployment are not related to Lync server licensing, but to the other voices we have seen

Alessio Giombini contributed to this review.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

Buyer's Guide

Skype for Business

October 2024

Free Report: Skype for Business Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about Skype for Business. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

it_user378093

Senior Specialist Unified Communications at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

Jul 23, 2017

Download

RDS, Conferencing, VoIP and IM are the most valuable features

What is most valuable?

RDS, Conferencing, VoIP and IM are the most valuable features.

The Remote Desktop Sharing (RDS): It allows the users to share the desktop during a collaboration session. This feature gained popularity with our users whilst assisting others or working on a document together.

Conferencing: The ability to host conference calls with multiple users and bring in mobile users or other participants on the click of a button proved superior. All the users, now, have conferencing space which is readily available on a moments notice. Scheduled meetings which are tightly integrated with Microsoft Outlook means the users spend less time organizing meetings; where the users needed to call the support team to book boardrooms or book conferencing resources, this is all now integrated with Outlook. Anyone can now do this easily without engaging with support desks or engaging conferencing of the support teams.

VoIP: The ability to call any user without incurring any charges. Since introducing Microsoft Lync, our users can now call other Lync users in other organizations. Our system is equipped with PSTN calling, which has allowed the users to make calls to PSTN from anywhere in the world. It has introduced flexibility in the way we work. We, now, have our users working on the road all the time and they can call/be called on their Skype number anytime-anywhere.

How has it helped my organization?

We have used Microsoft products and this product is tightly integrated in the Microsoft ecosystem. Everyone in the company uses some aspect of this product.

What needs improvement?

Conferencing and interoperability need to be improved.

The biggest challenge has been seen in terms of interoperability with the other vendors. Microsoft chose standards which are freely available to minimize their costs. This decision means other vendors cannot integrate with Skype because they are using licensed technologies. Conferences on Microsoft cannot be joined to conferences from other vendors; no collaboration across technologies. That means gateways that allow Skype to communicate with other conferencing systems are required. These gateways usually come with limitations on what you can/can't do during a conference. Adding gateways means spending more money without a guarantee that everything will work as intended. It, also, complicates the solution to provide all services.

Luckily, there are vendors who have risen to fill this gap, vendors such as Pexip and Acano. Fortunately or unfortunately, Acano was acquired by Cisco. These gateways allow Microsoft Skype to communicate with any conferencing systems without losing any functionality.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used this solution for eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It has been stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is good so far. We just added more servers to meet our needs.

How is customer service and technical support?

I would rate the technical support an eight out of 10.

How was the initial setup?

The setup was straightforward.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Business Enterprise Voice provides the most pain for pricing.

What other advice do I have?

QoS and ample bandwidth are a must. Virtualization can be a source of pain, i.e., if it is not implemented as per the requirements from Microsoft.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

reviewer1362285

Automation Systems Developer at a tech consulting company with 1-10 employees

Jul 12, 2020

Download

Easy video conferencing with a simple setup and capable of saving conversations

Pros and Cons

"I like the fact that it opens up your video conferencing, and, in many cases, the audio at the same time."

"The integration with Outlook could be improved."

What is our primary use case?

Recently, we all went remote, so we needed a way to implement virtual meetings on a large scale and we utilize Skype for Business for these purposes. It might have a lot to do with the response to COVID and getting more people connected for remote access.

What is most valuable?

The solution connects to meetings pretty well.

I like the fact that it opens up your video conferencing, and, in many cases, the audio at the same time.

It's very useful that the solution can save conversations.

What needs improvement?

The implementation could be improved.

In my case, I don't necessarily pick up audio, so I have to dial in. I have two connections. One is a visual and one is strictly for audio calls. Some other users aren't experiencing that issue. It's inconsistent and I'm not sure why. I also can't say with certainty that this is a Skype problem or if something else is causing the discrepancy.

There seems to be some sort of setting whereby it pretty much keeps instant messenger open all the time. I don't know what the settings are, or if this can be switched off. I believe there's an integration with that, where it assumes a certain status. I haven't had a chance to manually change it or to look into how to adjust it.

The integration with Outlook could be improved.

There could be more opportunities for setting up your current status.

The solution feels like it's pretty bare-bones. There could be some additional features added, perhaps on the statuses or something of that nature because as it stands now, it's pretty sparse. I have heard that they're going to be introducing some features pretty soon. I hope that's the case.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've personally used Skype itself for years. However, in terms of utilizing Skype for Business, I've only been using the solution for the last month, or, more accurately, about three weeks.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution seems to be pretty stable and is just as stable in the business version as the regular version. I haven't had any issues whatsoever with crashes or glitches. However, it does feel like it's pretty bare-bones.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is pretty scalable. You can use it across the company, and certainly within IT. Since everybody's working remotely now, with COVID-19, I think it scales quite well.

Even when you add people, it's still easy to manage many multiples people in a single meeting

I don't know how many people in our company are actually on it at this point. I imagine it's quite a few, however, I'm not sure of which departments that are using it, or if it's been deployed across the board.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've logged into technical support a few times on the Microsoft store. They used to actually go through edX at one point. They may have their own portal now. I've looked at it for various products such as SQL, Visual Source Code, etc. and not just for Skype, so I can navigate it pretty well. I've been helped there. They do have paths to different types of certifications and stuff. I have not gone through any of that myself, however.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. It's not complex at all.

What other advice do I have?

We're just a customer.

I'd advise other organizations that the implementation is pretty smooth as far as installations go, so they shouldn't be afraid to give it a try. Using it is very straightforward, and it just sits on your desktop as an icon, so it's easy to access when you need it.

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user3483

Senior Consultant at Unify Square

Dec 11, 2017

Lync 2013 High Availability

High availability is something that companies do not take for granted, they take it as given (especially when we talk about telephony). While Lync 2010 did a good work on this critical aspect there were still some weak points on the architecture when there was the need for a really continuous service. For example the mechanism behind the “backup registrar” implementation was really a limit and, for the Enterprise Front End deployments, the need for a clustered SQL server Back End was a restriction and did not match with the requirements related (also) to some kind of disaster recovery plan.

Front End Pairing and new rules on licensing

Lync 2013 makes a step forward, building on what was valid in the previous logics and using whole new solutions were they are necessary. The first huge improvement is related to the so called “Front End pairing”. I have created a presentation about this solution some time ago (http://bit.ly/XKCBzd) anyway what you need to know is that now your Standard Edition Front Ends (or your Enterprise Edition pools) can be tied and you are able to failover and failback users completely from one Front End to the other one with a simple Shell command. Some limits apply (pairing is supported only on similar Front Ends, so Enterprise Edition and Standard Edition mixes are not supported) but the result is really what you wish you had some years ago. The licensing has changed accordingly so that now there is no difference in the costs of a Standard or Enterprise edition of Lync. Obviously we are not talking about a “free lunch” because an Enterprise Edition deployment has a suggested minimum of three servers and you have to add the cost of at least one SQL server license to the amount. Talking about the Lync databases, we have another hot topic

Back End mirroring

The Lync Back End server (basically a SQL database hosting some of the Lync configurations and data) is really less important than it was in the past (and that’s why we are able to pair the Front Ends) but it is still mandatory for an Enterprise configuration of Lync. The high availability for Lync 2013 Back End supports:

SQL database mirroring
SQL database clustering (starting with the August 2013 update

Mirroring is interesting because it allows for geographically dispersed deployments and requiring no shared storage between the different SQL “nodes”.

There is no support fo SQL AlwaysOn, at the moment.

Pools

As I said, solutions used in Lync 2010 that were effective have been used also in Lync 2013. This is the case of the Lync roles “pools” that are still used to grant the availability of features such as Lync Edge, Mediation and Director (the last one being now more optional than ever). However something has changed also in Lync pools implementation. Monitoring and Archiving are no longer independent roles but are collocated with the Front Ends, so you do not need to create dedicated pools. Persistent Chat Server (a new role, interesting in scenarios where you need to create persistent “rooms” for users IM conversations) must be pooled too if you want to grant its continuous accessibility.

Mediation Server Supporting Multiple Trunk and Inter-Trunk Routing

This last topic is not strictly related to the high availability but the aforementioned features (multiple trunks and inter-trunk routing) add a series of possibilities when planning an Enterprise Voice solution and the additional elasticity can be turned in a resiliency instrument. For example multiple trunks can be defined between a Mediation Server and a voice gateway or multiple Mediation Servers can route calls to the same gateway. Applying the right voice routing policies you will be able to create a series of solutions to use existing connections to the PSTN network or SIP trunks for continuity. Inter-Trunk routing enables the interconnection of two or more IP-PBX systems and this could be used as a way to add voice resiliency too.

Drawing a conclusion

The new features and possibilities we have seen here have a deep impact on the design of a Lync solution and on the perception of Lync as an enterprise ready solution. With the right design (and investment) every piece of the deployment can be made highly available and affordable, with a logic that is no more bound to a single site but can include also branch offices, disaster recovery sites and Cloud features too (hybrid deployments are part of the game now). You can stay assured that people will look with a growing interest to Lync now that the aforementioned possibilities are no longer only in the wish list.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user3483Senior Consultant at Unify Square

Report as inappropriate

Sep 4, 2014

Hi Alin.
As you easily understand, I can not answer because the information I have are under a NDA.
However things move always so fast that you will not have to wait too much for an official answer on this topic from Microsoft :-)

See all 2 comments

it_user3483

Senior Consultant at Unify Square

Jul 4, 2016

Why Lync Server 2013 is Interesting

Disclaimer - Time flies, and I received a message from IT Central Station to update my past reviews, including the one I wrote some months ago about Lync Server 2013. Honestly, it would have been easy to just update a few lines here and there and keeping the contents (that were still good) online. However, I have tried to use wisely the aforementioned period of time and my knowledge of Lync and of his potential is now deeper. So, I decided to throw away the previous review (including a good number of views it had) and to write a completely new post.

What is Lync Server 2013

Lync is a Unified Communications (U.C.) product. It means that in a single product you have a native integration between many different communication tools (IM, conferencing, telephony, e-mail). Lync adds to the standard U.C. capabilities the integration with other Microsoft solutions (SharePoint, Exchange and Active Directory). The aforementioned integration uses information already available in your corporate software to give a better and more complete communication experience to the users. A remarkable example of the aforementioned capability, that I often use as an example, is the so called Skill Search. Skill search is a feature included in the user search of the Lync client that enables the use of working skills information coming from SharePoint as a filter.

Why Lync is Interesting

Lync Server 2013, from a certain point of view, is like two different solutions in a single product (also if a strong point of Lync is that you can move seamlessly inside the different available features). I will try to explain my point of view:

First “aspect” of Lync is the part dedicated to communication tools like IM and conferencing. From this point of view you could find similarities (and important dissimilarities) with other U.C. products. Lync is able to federate different companies and (also) external networks like Skype adds a flexibility that gives value for Lync enabled companies. User experience is really good, with great clients/apps available for almost any existing platform and device. Again, integration with other Microsoft services, adds communication tools, like scheduling a Lync meeting from the Outlook calendar or seeing presence and launching a Lync IM from the Exchange Outlook Web Access (OWA) interface.
Second “aspect” of Lync is the Enterprise Voice, a modern VOIP system that is able to replace the existing Private Branch Exchange (PBX) telephony and to overtake it with many additional features.
Lync has many mechanisms dedicated to grant high availability (see my Lync 2013 High Availability post here on IT Central Station, http://www.itcentralstation.com/product_reviews/lync-server-review-by-fabrizio-volpe) so that your telephony system will never let you down.
The client is really easy to use and it is powerful, giving users access to features like Call Via Work (enabling outgoing calls from any Lync client, including the apps for mobile devices, always showing your work phone number and not the real one) or Call Parking (put a call on hold from one telephone and then retrieve the call later, also from another phone, dialing an internal number).
Last (but not least) there are many voice routing mechanisms inside Lync, so that you are able to select the path that has the lower cost for a call or the one that is compliant with your company policy with a lot of flexibility

Both the aforementioned points are different faces of the same product, but also looking at them as separate solutions, we have a Lync is great competitor in the U.C. field.

Weak Points of Lync Server 2013

Lync on-premises is costly (you have to pay both user and server licenses).
A deployment of Lync is never trivial and, if we include the Enterprise Voice features, it requires real experts to obtain the best results.
The Office 365 version of Lync (Lync Online), less costly and complex than the on-premises solution, at the moment is not a viable solution, if you require telephony features.
Lync hybrid (on-premises and Cloud mixing) is constrained by the aforementioned limits in Lync Online
Large meetings on-premises require an infrastructure sizing that many companies could not be able to deploy

What Will Change for Lync in the Future

If you look at the list of the weak points, you can easily imagine that a solution for the pain points in the list is something that Microsoft is working on. The new “Mobile-First, Cloud-First” strategy that Microsoft has embraced involves all its products and it will have for sure an impact on VNext, the temporary name experts use for the forthcoming release of Lync.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user639537Works

Report as inappropriate

Apr 2, 2017

spot on

reviewer2057283

Software architect at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees

Jan 7, 2023

Download

Easy to use , with nice integration, and very scalable

Pros and Cons

"The integration with Microsoft Outlook for creating and scheduling meetings is nice."

"I would like to see an updated user interface and layout even though no functionality is missing."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case is for meetings, online meetings, internal meetings, and with vendors.

How has it helped my organization?

The integration with Microsoft Outlook for creating and scheduling meetings is nice. I believe that this software is very much like the others, for example, Microsoft teams.

What needs improvement?

I would like to see an updated user interface and layout even though no functionality is missing.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Skype for Business for the past two months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There is excellent scalability and we have five hundred users currently.

What other advice do I have?

I would highly recommend Skype for Business and give it a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

PunitThakkar

CEO at Shivaami Cloud Services Pvt. Ltd.

Dec 13, 2018

Download

It is a user-friendly solution that enables us to manage international meetings with ease.

Pros and Cons

"We chose Skype for Business after other colleagues suggested that we give it a try. It has served us well."
"We really like the screen sharing tool. The user experience is smooth, and user-friendly."

"I venture to say that 30% of the people using this solution at our company have had issues with stability, due to the volatility and crashes."
"Sometimes the connection crashes, which is understandable if you are traveling. But, it would be nice if this could be stabilized somehow."

What is our primary use case?

My primary use case for this solution is for internal meetings and meetings with customers.

What is most valuable?

I find the international dialing is the best feature.

What needs improvement?

Skype for Business needs to improve their support for Android cellphones. Sometimes the connection crashes, which is understandable if you are traveling. But, it would be nice if this could be stabilized somehow.

Additionally, I think there is a need to improve the chat-for-groups feature. It is not perfected yet.

For how long have I used the solution?

One to three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I venture to say that 30% of the people using this solution at our company have had issues with stability, due to the volatility and crashes.

How are customer service and technical support?

I do not have experience with tech support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used to use G Suite Hangout as a similar solution. But, prior to that, we were not using anything else in this domain. We chose Skype for Business after other colleagues suggested that we give it a try. It has served us well.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It may be considered costly for certain markets, such as in India.

What other advice do I have?

We really like the screen sharing tool. The user experience is smooth, and user-friendly.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.