In the April client release (42.4), Cisco greyed out the 'Connect Webex to Microsoft Outlook' tick-box in Settings -> General, apparently on the basis that it was causing adverse interactions with other collaboration apps that are also integrated with Outlook.
Surely it is up to the customer/user and/or the reselling SP organization to decide what to enable/disable for their product/use?
Cisco has provided steps (albeit they are spectacularly unclear!) to re-enable the tick-box in the Troubleshooting Guide ... BUT:
as an example of the lack of clarity, Step 3 of that troubleshooting guide is not well written and it is not clear enough what text is supposed to be a command and what text is an expected response, etc.;
the procedure is not appropriate for the skill level of typical end-users nor even possible for most end-users since they do not have sufficient Windows administrator rights to carry out the steps.
We have also found that irrespective of this, while users whose first Webex app install was of a version before 42.4 can toggle this tick-box, those whose first Webex app install was from 42.4 and later have this tick-box greyed out so they cannot toggle it on/off ... this inconsistency in itself has and will lead to further confusion!
This enhancement request is for Cisco to provide a partner/control-hub-based mechanism to allow partners/customers to control whether the integration via the client tick-box is permitted, rather than Cisco arbitrarily making the decision for us!
Is this for presence integration from the Webex app into Outlook? Or is this for the disablement of scheduling cross-launch to Outlook? It was not clear from the idea.
The checkbox next to the previous text "Connect Webex to Microsoft Outlook" really only connected the Webex app to Outlook in order to provide Presence and to allow a user to right-click on a user to be able to Click-to-Call and Click-to-Message using the Webex app from Outlook. That is all the functionality ever did before and we changed the text to be more appropriately named and better represent the functionality all along.
What feature did you want it to do?