The Polycom RealPresence Group Series is a video conferencing codec that connects to a standards-based video conferencing infrastructure to allow users to make video conference calls. There are three products in the series – RealPresence Group 300, RealPresence Group 500, and RealPresence Group 700. It is certified to use with Office 365 and Skype for Business.
N/A
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Score 7.5 out of 10
N/A
Skype for Business was an online messaging and conferencing tool, now superseded by Microsoft Teams.
N/A
Pricing
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Considered Both Products
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Verified User
Professional
Chose Polycom RealPresence Group Series
I have reviewed Skype and Skype for Business previously, and while I have enjoyed the use of those systems, the video and audio quality of Polycom RealPresence Group Series is far superior. Polycom Real presence Group Series has more functions and capabilities, and experiences …
Conference room systems do not seem to be commonly integrated with Skype for Business, so limited usability. Lifesize looked attractive, but the lower cost and local support of Polycom put it ahead.
We have used Microsoft Teams Rooms in some of our smaller huddle rooms that still require video, and this was due to the lower cost of the Microsoft Teams Room systems over the Polycom Presence Group series. The Microsoft Teams Rooms are perfect for small, less-used rooms, as …
As a previous AV installer, the Polycom line of product always superseded other hard codecs due to the reliability. Other expensive codec's don't supply the same features for the price of Polycom.
The GroupSeries has performed much better than all the alternative solutions we have tried. We have been a Lifesize shop for a long time, but their direction was cloud only and more proprietary so we wanted a more open solution. We also use Skype For Business and there is …
Polycom works better for groups 2-5, but Skype is much easier/simple for 1 to 1 connections or multiple connections as long as there is only 1 person from each site
We are still evaluating more about the differences between the two devices and how they handle audio and video within a call. Along with bandwidth, flexiblilty in meetings, and security features.
If you're always working in the Polycom ecosystem then the Group Series codecs are reliable and the quality of the camera and microphones are extremely good. However, the system relies heavily on either having onsite server technology and/or cloud based bridging capability. In addition, the peripherals like cameras and microphones are quite expensive. Maintenance and support costs also make the ongoing investment a costly one
Skype is useful for collaborations across distances, including work from home, as well as a more convenient way to communicate with a large group of people. Skype is also useful to communicate with specific parties quickly, rather than relying on cellular service in areas where not as available. Skype is less useful if the team does not use computers , tablets, smartphones, etc in daily workflow as it would rarely be used.
Instant messaging to anyone who we know only by name/email. Even if they're offline, they get the message in missed convos and a notification automatically goes to them via Outlook mail. All conversations are saved and accessible via Outlook.
Video and voice calls are a norm in the WFH scenario, and an average employee has around 4-5 calls a day. Skype gives notifications for upcoming meetings, allows easy scheduling via outlook calendar, and its audio/video quality [is] reasonably good compared to the amount of data it consumes.
Status availabilities - in the WFH scenario, you could be off for lunch, out of office, busy, sharing screens - and might not want to be disturbed. Skype allows you to do that, and in case you're off, ensures that you know that you have missed messages.
Screen sharing - we have to share screens at least once or twice a day with a coworker when working on some issues/features, and Skype easily lets us do that. One of the best things about Skype is that the screen can be shared without being on a video/voice call - which is of immense advantage because oftentimes, you could prefer sharing the screen, while it [is] too noisy to talk.
The only issue that we have experienced with Polycom RealPresence Group Series is the speed dial functionality. When attempting to use the speed dial buttons, the system occasionally sends a call through the computer system, not the phone. While the computer call option is valuable, not everyone can answer calls that way and we have had to do a manual lookup of an extension and call back when that happens.
Probably the biggest area is the video element as it has historically struggled in this area.
The need to be forced to federate with another organisation by providing yours and enabling the other organisation settings is a bit tedious but once done, allows for simple collaboration between third-parties.
Functionality wise, as it's an older product and being superseded by MS Teams, it feels as if it's run its course but was very good for what it does/did at the time.
The software is simple to install and configure. It is rather simple to explain for correct use. It is possible to profile users for the different functions offered. It is integrated quite completely with Outlook and with Active Directory security. It performs all communication functions well with one or more interlocutors and the possibility of granting control of your computer is convenient.
The directory is slightly dated and unless you have a Skype for Business integration license, dialing users into a call is difficult. The Group Series Remote whilst minimalistic is actually more difficult to use than the previous HDX remote. Having to recharge the battery on the group series remote is both annoying and difficult as if you do not keep on top of it, you will be faced with a situation where the remote is not working and then have to try and find another one. Not ideal if you need to start a video call (assuming auto join has not been enabled in the admin portal).
Very easy to use. Even though Microsoft Teams has a lot of features and integrations, as a user I feel completely comfortable on finding what I need, getting information about the app extensions and using them. It's a very comprehensive tool, intuitive design and does not make me feel tired to be using it. I am glad with the current experience.
I can't say I've needed support more than a handful of times. One was for trying to connect a Polycom Conference phone and a Real Presence together. After a few months, we came to the conclusion it wasn't possible, that was the only frustrating occurance with support. Any other time if we needed to RMA a device, it was very smooth.
I have only had to reach out to the Support team at Skype for Business once with an issue, and I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the quickness and thoroughness of their response. The wait time was short and my question was dealt with politely and clearly, so I would say the support team has it together.
Skpe for business is utilized company wide in regards to my company. Everyone not only uses it, but uses it often. It is an effective way of communicating. It also integrates very nicely with outlook and all conversation history is pushed to a folder within the outlook system. We also have it so that if someone misses a message, they are sent an email reminder saying that there is a message that went unread.
Polycom RealPresence Group Series stands head and shoulders above Microsoft Teams and Cisco Webex Meetings both for dependability and robust delivery of function. One established the meetings were very hard to break apart but easy to end when so desired. The installation of the devices, the training of technicians, and end-users were both intuitive and easy to manage, where the same interactions with Microsoft Teams and Cisco Webex In my opinion, and experience, were challenging to work through.
For the below reason I will always choose this app over its competitors: Better audio and video quality, Little to no disconnections or freezing when on a call/video conference Integrates well with mailbox/ calendar/ one drive, and SharePoint is easy to use
Once pexip integrates Polycom/skype this will be a big win for us due to the RPTouch integrating the "one - touch join". This will increase adoption of video greatly.
Before the Group series with peripherals was implemented the cost of a video room was twice what it is today. Massive win.
Due to provisioning and automated firmware the IT involvement has been greatly reduced. No longer is there a need for manual changes to individual endpoints.
We almost lost our biggest client because of the poor performance early on in our implementation...the online meetings were poor quality for audio and bandwidth refreshing
Many of the employees in our company disliked the quality so much, they started to sign up for free Cisco WebEx accounts to use instead
The majority of employees in our company lost trust in our CTO because of his decision to switch from Cisco WebEx to Skype for Business
