[*] Fallout of Skype purchase from Microsoft

[Sean Walberg]

How could Skype become *less* open than it is now? :)

WRT Skype/Asterisk, I'm curious what kind of revenue that means. If I had to
guess, the revenue is insignificant.  Microsoft probably got rid of Skype's
payroll department, but that didn't make the news.

Skype has two things to offer:

1. The technology
2. The user base (which by extension, includes the revenue stream)

For $8B Microsoft could have easily built their own. So it must be about the
users and/or revenue. But Skype's revenue ($1B/yr est) pales compared to
Microsoft's ($65B/yr). The business division (which I think is where the
VoIP stuff is) has about $21B of revenue attached. Skype would be a fraction
of that. And Skype users don't necessarily overlap with the corporate users.
 I really don't know what Microsoft gets out of this.

The other possible reason for Microsoft's purchase of Skype could have been
to prevent someone else from buying it.

Sean

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:23 PM, John Lange <john at johnlange.ca> wrote:

> In my opinion Skype will be replaced in a heartbeat by whatever the
> next big thing is and MS will be left holding an empty bag where
> $8Billion dollars used to be.
>
> Once cell providers are finally pushed (kicking and screaming) into
> offering data-only "phones" and one of my "apps" is something that
> lets me "phone" anywhere any time for free, why do I need Skype? You
> might argue that Skype will end up being "the app" in question, but
> with Microsoft at the helm it surely will not be.
>
> Microsoft did not buy Skype to get into the "Skype business", it
> bought Skype to help push it's traditional software products. That, by
> definition means Skype will become less open. Already they've yanked
> Skype for Asterisk. Will Microsoft continue to push Skype for
> iPad/iPhone/Android ? I can't think of any reason why they would.
>
> So the app that unites all "phone" users will have to be something else.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Bill Reid <billreid at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > I generally agree with what you are saying John but in reality Sean is
> correct.
> > Skype just works.
> >
> > The big problem with non-Skype VoIP solutions is still the lack of a
> global
> > directory. I was hoping that your email address would be the VoIP UID for
> > contacting people but that has not happened. All the infrastructure is
> there to
> > allow this but it is just not implemented. Once you get the PSTN part up
> we seem
> > to stop at that point. My impression is that almost all corporate VoIP
> systems
> > do not allow contact from the Internet. You have to go through a PSTN
> gateway.
> > Like IM if you have to know the system that a person is on before making
> contact
> > then it is basically broken. So far I think the PSTN and email are the
> only
> > systems that do not have this requirement.
> >
> > Skype of course is not a solution to this problem but like Facebook it
> wins by
> > having the most members.
> >
> > -- Bill
> >
> > On 26/05/11 09:29, John Lange wrote:
> >> Personally I've always failed to see the appeal of skype since it's
> >> something that could be replicated using other voip related tools with
> >> the added benefit of being tied to a larger database of potential
> >> users that you could reach.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk mailing list
> > Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
> > http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John Lange
> www.johnlange.ca
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk mailing list
> Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk
>



-- 
Sean Walberg <sean at ertw.com>    http://ertw.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/asterisk/attachments/20110526/6bc04bac/attachment.html