OK, I can’t resist posting. I’ve been a good boy, done my day’s alloted work (OK, I should have phoned the VAT man, maybe tomorrow). The kids are asleep for their afternoon naps.

The News Du Jour is that a company called FON are starting a “user-sponsored” public WiFi network. I saw their pitch at the ETel conference, and you have to be impressed by their passion, if nothing else.

There’s plenty of places to go read the PR blurb and the blogospheric commentary.

First, the good news. This aligns with what I’ve been saying for a long time, namely that the locus of innovation in telecom will move to how networks are priced and financed. When the user and owner interests align (because in some respect they’re the same folk), nobody cares any more about capturing the consumer surplus of the stupid network.

Now the bad news. I think they’ve started with the hardest case first, which is consumers. The highest possible cost per added node, the lowest revenue per user. A more promising start might be enabling public-service workers to roam among localities, or companies to have reciprocal rights in business parks.

Sadly, it also highlights a screw-up in how almost all corporates set up their networks. Somehow, physical connectivity within the building is seen as a great way to ensure secure access to networks. (Hey, all the contract cleaners are trustworthy, aren’t they?) The sensible alternative would be Internet access everywhere in the building, and get people to VPN in. If you find that VPNs are too expensive, you’re buying your networking gear from the wrong vendor. This also avoid the frequent and ridiculous situation of visitors being unable to get Net access. Some of those folk are $’000s per day consultants you’re working hard to prevent from being productive. Anyhow, FON isn’t easy to do for corporated because they’ve embedded security policy in the access network, the exact opposite of what the end-to-end principle tells you.

So FON is a very risky venture, where unless they find some seed markets onto which to condense a critical mass of connectivity, you’re just left with isolated islands too disparate to justify the effort of membership. After all, our friendly open networks “Linksys” and “default” are pretty ubiquitous, too. I want them to succeed, but it looks like the kind of venture that you need to bung $1bn at to get it started. But as a way of Google kicking sand in the face of some telcos, maybe that’s an affordable budget.

PS - it’s cold enough here in Vilnius that the snow is just precipitating out of the air near the freezing ground — blue sky above! Was -19C when I arrived last night, and felt it too.

Martin makes trouble at Telepocalyse

Skype is about to release SkypeWeb ("Hi, world, I'm on Skype!" on your blog) as a hosted web service. Right now it will just catch up with the neighbors (AOL, Yahoo!, and MSN all have presence services). This will be free.

That's stage 1 as I see it. Wide-open public presence.

Stage 2 adds a range of personal controls.

It starts with faceted presence. That's when I have more than one identity: "Phil Wolff, Editor of Skype Journal", "Member of the Wolff family", "student in Piedmont Community College Monday night Mandarin 1 class". Each identity's presence is customized for each requestor of that presence. Members of my bowling team can know I'm out of town. My family can always reach me. My colleagues can see me during office hours. SkypeWeb hides my cell phone from most of my clients but my boss and my big customers can always see it. Cheaper than voice mail and priced like caller ID or an unlisted phone number.

Stage 3 is where the money comes in. Shrink-wrap the SkypeWeb presence server. Let enterprises run and manage their own servers, inside the intranet, in their DMZs. CIOs should be integrating finely tuned presence into CRM apps, collaboration toolkits, HR/directory services, phone systems, etc. Licence to online markets (like Microsoft Live Expo, Craigslist, Amazon) who encourage conversation among like-minded buyers and sellers.

The eBay impact: Skype presence becomes a competitive advantage among sellers, especially for complex goods and always for billable services.

Developer ecosystem impact: This can become good for the Skype developer community, integrating faceted presence with other systems. For example, creating collective presence where quorums trigger calls and call negotiation where caller attributes, constraints, goals, and priorities inform schedules.

This depends on:

• Continued investment in SkypeWeb,
• Effectively communicating their commitment to platforming SkypeWeb, and
• Leading (or at least responding) to the other companies entering the presence space.

I'm with Stuart in being disappointed that SkypeWeb was launched with such a minimal feature set and no clear business drivers. But I'm hopeful and eager for more.

vpod.tv's Rodrigo A. Sepúlveda Schulz talked with me at the CES Camp a few days ago:

Live from Las Vegas #017: Meet Phil Wolff (Skype Journal) [English]

Download: Movie (.mp4)

More information on the skypejournal.com.

Phil gives us his top 2 predictions for 2006 related to Skype, and his 2 dream features for the next release of Skype.

Update: taken at the CES camp with my Nokia N90.

See also a short clip of Stuart Henshall playing with his Nokia N90.

Phil Wolff asked me via IM what I thought about this Booz Allen Strategy + Business article on ‘Format Invasions’, as it relates to Skype. I’ll post my thoughts here in public, though.

To save you the effort of actually reading the article, the essence is that industries are susceptiple to invasion by new entrants wielding a “new format” or value network that has lower intrinsic cost. Many examples are given, such as Southwest Airlines vs incumbents; Toyota and lean production vs incumbents; and so on. It parallels Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma, but has different dynamics as the innovation is not a technology one and isn’t protected by intellectual property. It is largely a matter of values and “delivery technology” — the art of executing a particular way of getting the same customer outcome with fewer resources.

Superficially Skype would appear to fit the pattern of the article, and telcos would be wise to follow the advice. The problem is this. Skype doesn’t have any new format revenue. So far, all the revenue comes from PSTN interconnect services, and services like voicemail which have been constructed with legacy centralised PSTN-alike cost functions. It’s a bit like Southwest Airlines running a network where they give all flights away for free — unless they happen to compete on a route where American or United have a service, in which case they charge.

So until there’s a “real Voice 2.0 company” with revenues from presence, transaction integration, social networking, or some other such innovation, the business gurus’ advice is somewhat hard to interpret in the context of Skype. Furthermore, we have a more complex situation. Traditional telephony bundles connectivity rental with voice service. In the new model people tend to buy all-you-can-eat connectivity and then run “free” voice service. So there isn’t an apples-to-oranges fit. You’re also seeing a split of a once unified industry into two at the same time.

All I can say really is you need to hire a really good consultant to navigate you through the strategic maze ;)

Martin navigates through the turbulence from his Telepocalypse weblog.

When at Sprint, myself and David used to run around doing exec presentations on how the Sprint diamond logo (RIP) should be a trust mark, and that Sprint could add value as an intermediaryby making people’s (wireless) web browsing experience safer and more convenient. We even filed a patent, whereby the operator logo on the handset would light up when showing operator-provided interstitial advice pages.

Anyhow, we used to get a lot of blank stares, and telcoheads looking at us like we’d just come back from vacation on planet Zog.

I don’t think we’d get that reaction now. Just take a look at this:

This is the fire-up splash page from their new anti-phishing plug-in for Firefox. Google is the Web’s new trustmark. Can you imagine any telco positioning themselves in this way? Every intermediation of a telco is regarded with distrust and suspicion. Nobody sees a telco trademark and thinks (however naively): “these guys are on our side”. Google have to follow “don’t be evil”, not because they’re nice, but because the privacy effects of theis business give them no choice.

PS - Notice Amazon/Alexa’s new service where they are offering web crawling APIs (for a fee)? We argued that Sprint was in a good position to become the champion of commercial web services APIs, where people assembled applications from lots of component services, but where money was also due to flow between those parties. The idea was to leverage Sprint’s natural advantage in providing an in-house selection of web services (messaging, profile, identity, etc.) into a wider sphere. Needless to say, those ideas got killed, and Sprint remains a capital-bound midwestern telco, and not a cash-machine virtual enterprise like Google.

Martin peers suspiciously from his Telepocalypse weblog.

By Torben Nyhuus, Aalborg, Denmark

The contest to acquire market shares on the growing VoIP market is at full pace. The market is;

• the VoIP calls,
• the internet access,
• the devices.

Is the mobile/cellular market also afflicted?

VoIP calls:

Skype is reaching out to new customer segments. With Jubii and Skype in new cooperation!

(Jubii was the first and is the most successful web portal in Denmark, visited by 2.5 mill users monthly. DK has 5 million inhabitants.)

The Danish internet portal Jubii has commenced a cooperation with the world's most popular provider of IP-telephony, Skype. The new cooperation is a cobranding strategy, which shall broaden the knowledge of Skype in Denmark, and in return be a new source of income to Jubii.

The idea is to get Skype out to Ms. and Mr. Smith, using Jubii to reach them and fight the somewhat nerdish stamp on Skype. Skype can now be downloaded from on Jubii and Skype is expecting a Danish success making telephony free. In return for this exposure Jubii gets a part of the SkypeOut revenue generated.

Microsoft building our VoIP backbone!

Microsoft bought Teleo and is now co-operating with MCI to let users, as a start, make calls from PC to fixed line and the mobile/cellular net.

Google, Yahoo, and AOL have been on VoIP for a while.

Access:

Old and now privatised Telco’s: Broadband access is still being sold at too high prices; you still must pay for a phone line to be 'allowed' to pay for ADSL/DSL, that’s even with a three-party ISP, double charging. The privatised Telco’s and governments are still happily milking the cow together! Did they make a secret agreement? For how long? Was this international, European/EU wide? The necessary legislation is postponed (Government/MP’s claim further examination needed) to the fourth quarter 2006 in Denmark, this on an already five year old issue. No wonder that TDC can keep a 70% market share on broadband.

Mobile prices:
Are mobile prices being squished from 3G (UMTS) and the lowered fixed line prices?

In the mobile area, discount sales of cards are now starting in the Aldi shops in Germany. Aldi is a low price supermarket chain spread out over Europe with 4000+ shops alone in Germany. This is a big stick in TDC’s discount EasyMobile (purely internet based), launched 4 months ago, gaining 15,000 customers. EasyMobile has already lowered their price from 16 -14 € cent as a response to Aldi's 15 € cent.

Deutsche Telekom, Europe's largest telephony company, responded with a full page ad to counter Aldi, which began its service on Thursday. … T-Mobile will have to provide something to keep customers. Aldi has been one of the driving forces behind retail change in Europe's largest economy.

by TMCnet

Aldi is also selling IT hardware, recently a Wi-Fi SIP phone (200+ €) for Hotspots and your other access points.

Devices:

Kirk and RTX companies are joining up to get global market shares together on both Wi-Fi and DECT.

Kirk Telecom, who already has an 8% market share in North America on 2.4/5 GHz DECT products and a 100+ years of telephony history behind it is being sold to US SpectraLink, known for its Wi-Fi Netlink products.

RTX and Kirk Telecom are long term co-operators, both Danish companies. All three are VoIP ‘players’, more on this Monday.

And when are we going to see new Skype devices? The long promised Wi-Fi phone is not yet seen. Accton and Skype and their WIFI phone -Skype Journal.

The WiFi phone prototype. Share Skype, the Skype blog, lists 34 preferred partners but Accton is not among them!?

RTX is soon launching a VoIP standalone SIP phone before a Skype one. Is the eBay takeover delaying Skype getting the certification process going on new (kind of) products and making better room for non-Skype ones? Is Skype on public Wi-Fi hotspots not significant?

Which new players will join in, will they be late? Will even new IP markets be opening during the next year?

Skype kicked in some money to the Les Blogs 2.0 conference yesterday and today. If you are awake on Paris time today, you might join the backchannel on irc.freenode.net #lesblogs. Anyone from Skype attending?

There are great threads in the blogosphere. Thanks to Andy Abramson, Alec Saunders, and Jim Courtney for permission to repost this one on Skype Journal as the Skype Status Report Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. This conversation digs into Skype product management and developer relations, up to and after eBay. Mark Evans' comments on the thread: "eBay Got Suckered on Skype. After reading some of Andy Abramson's recent posts on Skype, as well as my own views on Skype's sudden loss of mojo, I've come to the conclusion eBay got suckered badly on the deal by Tim Draper and Niklas Zennstrom."

One of the festering Skype developer grievances has been the escargot pace of updating Skype's API documentation. London finally hired a staffer to at least document changes since version 1.3 (five months of limbo can be a long time). This is great.

Much better would be actually extending the API as pledged last summer. Lenn Pryor's post on the Skype Developer Zone blog, API Development Updates, 07/13/2005, listed six areas of API extension. 1. Application to Application (App2App) Messaging. 2. Call Forwarding. 3. Web Presence API. 4. Extensible profiles. 5. Enhanced Skype UI control. 6. Improved Searching. Some of these have shown up in exclusive partner arrangements, but most haven't been seen in any platforms or documentation available to general developers. That's among the reasons that Yahoo! and Microsoft have been hiring independent software developers right out of the Skype ecosystem. It's also why the rest eagerly await new messaging APIs from Microsoft and Google. Ott Kaukver, a marvelous directory of competitive platforms is hosted as The Programmable Web's Web 2.0 API Reference, most showing up in the last year. Now is the time to platform your hearts out, Tallinn.

A little execution, some leadership, a lot of vision can fix this. We'll see.

On the bright side, Dick Schiferli, publisher of the first software certified by Skype, pointed me to VoIP: A Type of Vodka? (Newsfactor magazine). "While VoIP is moving quickly from early adoption to the mass-market phase, Frost & Sullivan senior analyst Lynda Starr observed, there is some bad news. 'The bad news is that the consumer mass market has different needs, requirements, and interests that weren't crucial to the early adopters with their high geek-factor quotient.'"

This slam is directed at the 95% of the SIP VoIP crowd that simply mapped everything old onto newer plumbing. Think any VON exhibit hall. Skype understands that the road to the enterprise starts with products that people will fight to use. Like the first PCs, Macs, and PDAs, employees are smuggling Skype into their offices. How can you leave your social network at home if you work in an information/knowledge/attention economy job? You can't.

Skype is still feeling its way in some areas (charging for WeeMee avatars is a 50-year-old's delusional conceptions of tween behavior and attitudes) but the overall focus on simple and elegant user experience, starting with audio quality, sets it apart from the VoIP old school incumbents. Skype has a lead, but it's measured in months, not quarters or years. Will they blow it? Or extend the lead further?

My Musings on Alec's Musings on Om and Andy's Musings

Posted Monday, December 05, 2005 Jim Courtney on his Musings of an Internet Marketing Consultant blog

Alec Saunders wrote a post today on the publisher/partner relationship between a platform developer (such as Microsoft or Skype) and the third party partner ecosystem that is available to expand the use of the platform through the collective intelligence that can be leveraged beyond the basic platform’s marketing and developer resources. His perspective comes from thirteen years of product and partner relationship management at Microsoft; my perspective comes from six years with a software publisher that had a love/hate (or maybe “hate/love”?) relationship with Microsoft. For a success story he specifically refers to a Microsoft partner relationship that I always viewed as a model for how to deal with this situation, namely, Symantec’s. Skype is now wrestling with similar issues.

Having personally been on the “other side" of this picture in the early 1990’s when working at Quarterdeck who had a multi-tasking environment (DESQview) that Bill Gates considered a serious threat to Windows in the late 80's and early 90's, Quarterdeck’s approach contrasts starkly with how Symantec handled the situation as new MS-DOS versions were introduced that entrenched on utility publishers’ market space. Quarterdeck had a memory management utility that won several awards as the top selling utility in the pre-Windows 95 world (two are sitting in my office here). Quarterdeck also licensed Mosaic code from Spyglass (in fact, prior to Microsoft obtaining their license). But Quarterdeck management had such an emotional neurosis about Microsoft such that they failed to see the business opportunities. Some lessons learned:

1. Quarterdeck's memory manager (QEMM) was always "two versions" ahead of the MS-DOS memory manager with many features that provided more benefits to the user, especially those who were doing installations in the emerging office/home network space of the day. (Networking PC's was still a bit of a black art in those days.) Had they taken a business-like approach in their Microsoft relationship they also could have built a much stronger business (and maybe even avoided the 1994 restructuring in which I participated). Meanwhile Symantec built a model business relationship that has allowed them to be a market leader even to this day.

2. Quarterdeck was so hung up on fighting software piracy (we figured there were ten copies of QEMM out there for every legal copy -- and those were pre-Internet days when BBS's had their own form of peer-to-peer sharing), that they missed and did not understand the Internet model of frequent beta releases and building awareness in the user community through an electronic "word of mouth" approach. As a result Netscape won the initial battle of the browser war (Microsoft had not quite had its "come-to-the-Internet" revelation at that point) because Mark Andreeson and company understood the Internet "culture". Today I would maintain that Quarterdeck’s memory manager market success in those days can be attributed to the number of "pirated" copies out there being "evaluated" by tech geeks and the resulting recommendations in their viral network. Today we can see a valid effective compromise in that one can generally trial software prior to making a purchase; in fact, this model allows one to use Jeff Sandquist's seven day rule in determining the software's or service's value.

3. The Stac patent suit and resulting $85 million award against Microsoft did create a precedent for showing that, if you build a good enough product (in their case disk compression), you did have a valuable asset that even Microsoft would have to pay for. Subsequently Microsoft became much more aggressive in buying technology … Front Page is a great example where Microsoft did not have the time or resources to develop an HTML editor. They bought Vermeer, a small start-up company, that could only really succeed rapidly enough through Microsoft’s marketing power and distribution channels.

As a result I would recommend for Skype and its partners:

1. Build a partner “trust” relationship that provides insight into Skype’s development road map but allows developers to build true value-add. It has been know for quite a while that Skype would have a video product so this launch should not be a surprise to Festoon and DialCom. Microsoft did have evangelists who specialized in building trust relationships; Rick Segal was the Quarterdeck evangelist at one point; he had a personal relationship with several of the senior Quarterdeck restructuring management team of the day. His blog today reflects much of his experience with these types of programs. Unfortunately there was a legacy cultural block at Quarterdeck to building on this.

2. Build value-added premium services into your “third party” product. For instance, the Skype video only allows one-to-one video while Festoon provides multi-party video conferencing. (QEMM always got 50% more valuable memory freed up than any DOS memory management feature did; thus it could much more readily address the networking space missed by the MSDOS memory manager.) Of all the products reviewed on Skype Journal, my one criticism is that, with few exceptions such as Verosee, the developers do not give enough thought to providing a true value-added premium offering that solves a real user problem. (As an aside I am as sceptical as Alec on the acceptance and use of video in the IM and real time communications markets; until there is a “killer” problem to address, it’s a nice-to-have but not required feature, based on my experience with the web conferencing market.)

3. Incorporate into your offering a business model that encourages evaluation but requires payment after seven to 15 days. This gives enough time to determine if there is value and if it will be used on a regular basis. Verosee has done a great job at that; the offerings are easy to access and easy to purchase after a 15 day evaluation.

Skype has many assets: over 50 million registered users, an API toolkit that has been well received and the level of “geek enthusiasm and energy” that we used to see in the Quarterdeck market ecosystem. However, as Stuart Henshall at Skype Journal has discussed, now they need Product Management and Third Party Partner programs that build trust while allowing all parties to generate business success. The immediate challenges for eBay is to introduce a management style and company culture that encourages innovation but also establishes trust while at the same time creating a revenue base that justifies a $2.6B plus bonuses purchase price. And, who knows, maybe Skye (eBay) will buy some of these auxiliary product or service companies to build out their offering.

One final aside: Quarterdeck’s web browser had a few unique features that have gradually been incorporated into Internet Explorer. The final (and to me most valuable) “unique” feature will be incorporated into Internet Explorer 7 next year: tabbed browser windows – a variation on this was in the Quarterdeck browser developed in 1995. (And a feature that has given Firefox a huge boost in acceptance.)

And two ironic closing notes: (i) I seem to recall that in 1995 Alec Saunders was the MS Internet Explorer product manager and (ii) Symantec bought the residual of Quarterdeck in 1998 to address a market-driven need for access to its last valid utility product, CleanSweep.

Skype’s Platform Strategy

posted Monday, December 5th, 2005 on Alec Saunders' blog

Andy continues to dig for dirt on Skype.  In this lengthy post he reveals his talents as a full blown investigative reporter!  The integration problems I speculated about previously seem to be real.  I would imagine that these are unavoidable, in any merger.  But Andy’s right that it’s going to take a close relationship between top management in the UK and top management in the US. 

As a result of Andy’s post, I went back and reread Om’s post on the Skype 2.0 beta.  One point Om makes is that Skype continues to gobble up ideas that independent developers bring to the table:

The Video calling feature seems great, except when it starts getting mass adoption, it will start to choke the upstream part of your broadband, and for some odd reason that really makes incumbents mad! It also raises some crucial questions about the future of independent developers. As Skype continues to subsume great ideas implemented by its developer community, is it running the risk of alienating the very community that made it great. Today three companies that offer Skype plugins get impacted - Video plugin maker Festoon and DialCom that offers Video4IM. Skype now offers a new Microsoft Outlook toolbar which impacts another independent developer, the Skylook.

This is the perennial problem every platform maker faces — how to enhance the platform while impacting ISV’s the least.  A stark example of this would be Microsoft’s inclusion of IE in Windows. At the time, the Mac had a browser called Cyberdog, and IBM had WebExplorer for OS/2.  Windows, without a browser, was simply uncompetitive. We knew it, and we licensed the Mosaic code base from Spyglass in the fall of 1994. Then the phenomenon called Netscape happened. So, should Microsoft have remained uncompetitive because an ISV had already implemented the feature?

If you intend to be an independent developing software for a platform you don’t control, then you need to be constantly vigilant about what the platform maker might do.  Some companies have successfully executed this strategy for years — Symantec is a great example.  Symantec is so valuable to Microsoft that Microsoft routinely consults them on all new major OS features.  This is especially valuable to Symantec because they get to see competing features long before those features are released, which provides ample opportunity to build competitive new features.

And similarly, the platform vendor needs to ensure that early information and builds are available to the ISV community.  In the case of this video release, Skype should have released the video components to developers early, and solicited feedback on API’s etc that would have increased the value of video to the ISV community, rather than compete directly.  It’s a small, but important, step in building a thriving ISV community.

Om Muses About Skype 2.0 I Muse About It Too

Posted December 03, 2005 to Andy Abramson's VoIP Watch

Om Malik has made a lot of outstanding points in this post about Skype in a slightly critical manner.

The last few days I've been spending a lot of time talking to past, current and very closely aligned Skype people. The assembly and assimilation of facts isn't pretty.

First a well seasoned investment banker, from a very prestigious firm, shared with me some shareholder percentages over a glass of wine. Basically Niklas and Janus walked away with a majority of the stock and a boatload of Euros, while Index Ventures and DFJ were in for roughly 13 percent combined of the loot with the rest scattered amongst the few. The savvy banker also confirmed that the Estonian programmers got very little.

Another closely aligned advisor to Skype continues to shake his head in wonderment at they way things are being done and how many, if not almost all of the successful aspects of Skype's culture are being dismantled by eBay's leadership team. There is this almost Borg like eBayization of Skype in process and it's starting to resonate in whispers that are being heard, so while it's needed in some ways to grow the asset, I don't think two and a half months of observation is enough time to figure out what made it work, even if the whole process of buying Skype started back in May when one of Meg's top level aides issued a memo to key staff to learn and gather as much as they can about VoIP and Skype.

Then there's Skype London. Some claim new faces are about Marketing themselves to prove their mettle, not about what got Skype to the top of the heap. Comments from internal folks, or recently departed, echo and revolve around terms like "power hungry," "control" and "micro management." They also talk moan and groan about confusion and lack of clarity, a wonderment sometimes of whose in charge. Some USA Skype employees don't even know when key folks leave the company, and have resorted to reading the blogs to keep up on internal company efforts. That's not good

Then there is the recent software releases. Word is Skype rushed the Windows XP Video client out too soon citing internal disagreement on the roadmap. Others talk about the now current sound affects versus what was already in place. My personal experience with the Mac client shows that it takes longer to load and while it has a better looking interface, the sound effects are a step back, not forward even if the addition of management of Skype Forward is. What is the saying about two pounds of crap in a one pound sack. Well you get the idea.

So lets add up what's happening:

1. Disgruntled programmers who are likely ready to bolt

2. A disfunctional, cross cultural chasm being formed between eBay's team and Skype's

3. Software that's not as good as what it replaces, with sizzle, not steak being hyped

4. Media agreements that don't have any teeth and that get broken at will

5. A basic growing undercurrent in the technology, investment and user sectors about just what's going on.

eBay's more experienced managers better get a handle on what they bought fast, not try and force their culture too quickly onto Skype. Meg Whitman and company also need to require that Nicklas to get his butt to the USA, regardless of his prior DoJ issues. That song has been played to death and it's time he takes his lumps and deals with the matter once and for all. You can't run a global business like Skype by remote control with flights to London, and that's what eBay is doing right now. Maybe the programming side, but not the business side, and clearly by the recent hiccups, not the marketing side.

It's also more and more apparent to me that Skype is an eBay company, not only an investment. That means the leadership team needs to be here, all together, for at least six to nine months solidly in order for real integration to occur. Conference calls, chats and exchanges of documents will only go so far. And if not corrected the investment will not meet the earnout levels that are expected. And that won't be good for anyone.

If this doesn't all happen, Skype will be the thing that was. The company de jour, not a company that was built to last.

[Editor: Just to set things up: Network Neutrality is the idea that a communications carrier should play fair by not picking favorites among applications or services running over its network. Sounds good, neh? Count on Martin to go all counterintuitive on us...]

I’m sure this is something that’s been raked over before, but I don’t see a common understanding of what ‘Net Neutrality’ actually is. Despite many of the Internetorati demanding it by law. Whatever.

There appear to be several different camps, which you could paint as “bottom of IP”, “middle” and “top”.

The bottomistas would see enforced Internet Protocol itself as a premature optimisation and violation of the end-to-end principle. Unhappy that you only get IPv4 or IPv6? Still grumpy that you only have IPv4 and not even IPv6? Really miserable that your VoIP packets are staggering under the poisonous load of IPv6 headers? You’re a bottomista.

I suspect there are some fundamentalist bottomistas who would object to your service providers not giving you a choice of Ethernet, ATM or roll-you-own-L2-protocol. We’ll pretend to be out and not answer the door when they knock.

The middlemen draw a distinction between “raw IP” (before the ISP gets ahold of it), and “retail IP”, which is what you and I get to experience. This kind of suggests that the OSI 7-layer model got it horribly wrong, because there’s a fundamental cleave right in the middle of layer 3, where IP sits. Fair comment, but sounds pretty radical to me. Although I’ve never really got layer 6, so maybe they’re onto something.

Then you might be a “top of IP” kind of girl. You can cope with the discrimination creeping higher up the stack to the next layer, where particular TCP and UDP ports and flags are screened off. But you only get queasy if particular commercial service providers or applications are targeted. Blocking off port 25 is OK to you, since it doesn’t discriminate against any particular email service provider.

Sadly, these are all hogwash and bunkum.

Net Neutrality is a dead end, because

as Searls and Weinberger correctly noted, the Net isn’t a thing, it’s an interconnected set of agreements. These are bilateral and freely entered into. And since those agreements weren’t modelled off a viral template such as the GNU General Public License, they are all unique. There’s no contagious clause that insists the Internet becomes a “thing” by virtue of everyone having to agree to freely and neutrally pass packets in an ever growing pool of Neutraldom. So to impose neutrality you’re going to have to interpose yourself into a lot of contracts. (Another reason why “Internet Governance” is an oxymoron when referring to anything beyond IP address allocation and routing, which do require some central agreement and co-ordination.)

There’s no grand “first principle” from which you can derive network neutrality as an economic argument. No public choice, competition, game theory or otherwise construct that leads us there. Indeed, saying that the public would benefit if there was a transfer of wealth from providers to users isn’t good enough. You’re playing with matches in the oil refinery when you start messing with property rights. Yes, those networks are mostly funded by risk capital. The local loop copper of a fixed operator may still be hangovers from monopoly days, but generally those assets were brought into the private sector on clear rules, the stockholders took a punt, and some of the better informed ones who saw the long-term potential of DSL etc. got to reap a windfall. Of course in parallel the telcos have done a superlative job of lobbying for rules that keep competition out, but that’s a different issue.

But wait a moment, it gets worse.

What if I wanted to allow people in the street to access my WiFi? But I only want to offer web and email, so as to make P2P filesharing tricky. As a good public-spirited citizen I put up a splash page so they know exactly what’s going on. Am I allowed to? Or is Net Neutrality only for the mythical mystical “them”?

When in deploying my network do I need to “design-in” neutrality? Concept, build or operation? Should we be outlawing the deployment of PSTN-specific GSM networks because they’re “unfair” to non-PSTN voice applications like Skype? Am I allowed to deploy non-technological measures for neutrality, such as contract terms? Am I allowed to read the packets, but not block them, in order to enforce my contract (repeat - freely entered into by both partners)?

What level of jitter and congestion is perceived as “neutral”? What if I deploy technology like Qualcomm’s 1xRTT, which separately supports voice and data, with PSTN-only voice, but the data is a bit lousy for VoIP? Is that being unfair, or merely a realistic response to the limitations of technology?

Is neutrality a wholesale or a retail problem? What if the access infrastructure owner offers “neutral” IP connectivity, but no retail provider chooses to pass that on directly to the public without layering on some filtering and price discrimination?

Oh, and what’s so special about the Internet? Do other IP-based networks need neutrality principles? Do any networks? Should more network industries be forced to forego “winner takes all” rewards? Google looks awfully dominant at adverts, doesn’t it… I wonder if that ad network needs a bit of “neutrality”?

Incidentally, although I’m against blanket rules enforcing neutrality, I would reserve it as a tool for post hoc competition and antitrust law enforcement. And I think you can make a stand on Network Neutrality on political and free speech grounds, but that requires a very different policy approach (i.e. not one that confiscates the proceeds of private capital investment).

And if the users value a neutral connection so much, perhaps it’s time for them to self-organise a bit, build their own networks, or tender for connectivity together — rather than rolling over and accepting whatever the local telco can cableco provide by default. But that would burst the illusion that government is here to save us from ourselves and we’ve no need to take personal responsibility for our connectivity freedom.

The moment you try to define Network Neutrality, you have to choose a layer, a time, a market, the participants. You have to make non-neutral choices in order to define the boundary of your Neutrasphere. There is no ‘neutral’ space devoid of favouring the interests of particular market players. The contradiction is inherent. There is no way to finesse it away.

Everything’s bass-ackwards. Neutrality is a sign of healthy supply competition and sophisticated ways of demand expression. It’s an output, not an input. Beware demanding net neutrality as a blanket principle, rather than a scalpel to excise particular local anti-competitive acts. Khrushchev declared the corn harvest was great, too — but it didn’t create the incentives for more corn to be sown and for the system to succeed on future iterations. And net neutrality rules are also likely to have the exact opposite effect of that intended.

Net neutrality messes up freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights.

I don’t buy it.

via Telepocalypse.net

Blogs become a memory aid, a backup brain, if you will. A compendium of ideas and observation, some incomplete, others seeking connection, but they are snapshots day by day of our intellectual lives. So much so that a good practice is to review your posts. Look through the past month, the past quarter, the past year for patterns, for ideas you'd started to express that you can now finish, for rough ideas you can polish, for events and people and places that you'd forgotten were a part of your life. This introspection, this audit, makes you more aware of your progress through time, as a witness to your own life and as a critic of your own voice and perspective.

I've been blogging since 1998, more or less continuously. And those blogs are a legacy of my life and thought and expression since then.

But long before that, since Windows 3.1 days, I kept phone notes. Text files with names like "fn 19970423 Dad.txt". They are filled with often useless, context-free notes of the day, some transcribed from Post-Its and others written straight into Windows Notepad. Lots of phone numbers that ring to different people, lots of first names I can't recall, fragments of dialog that meant something at the time, and breadcrumbs to people who might have been colleagues, friends, family, or lovers.

And with mobiles and Skype, I spend more time in conversation than just about any time in my life.

Skype is helping a little bit.

Depending on my configuration, Skype keeps copies of my chat conversations. I can title text chats for better recall. And with one of the third-party plug-ins, I can record my voice calls.

I live with Skype running all the time so I want much more.

I want Skype to help me keep better notes.

• To keep more context of my conversations (date, time, full names, links to related conversations).
• To keep promises made.
• And promises kept.
• All the calls I make, even if they don't go through.
• All the voice mails I leave, even if unrequited.
• Every attempt by people to contact me, whether by chat or by voice or video.
• Any and all profile information available to me about my friends and all conversants, snapshotted over time - not just updated.
• And let me annotate transcripts and files with notes that aren't actually part of the chat transcript or audio in the call.
• Let me tag each conversation if I want.

And I want Skype to help me use those memories.

• To organize them, by date, by topic, by social distance, by social context.
• To search them.
• To bounce that data across other systems for enrichment, like looking up people in LinkedIn or syncing my Skype contact list with my Yahoo! and Gmail address books.

Memory is one of the elements of intelligence. By helping me understand and use my social interaction history, Skype makes me smarter. You amplify that intelligence by bringing that help to me at specific moments when I need it (when someone calls, when a contact or prior conversation is mentioned during a call, when citing a conversation in an email or a blog post or another chat). You help me manage myself by helping me see deep patterns

• in my relationships (this person was a close friend but you haven't talked with them in six months),
• in my behavior (you seem to call this person every Thursday before lunch),
• in my interests (you seem to be talking about Logitech a lot this month), and
• in my use of time.

Please: make me smarter.

Public conversations make the world smarter.

Blogs are one-to-many communication. My words, flung to the Internet. Scoured by search engines. Subscribed to or stumbled upon.

Skype conversations are mulitparty. It's the difference between a standup comic with a microphone and an improv troupe. Between an a capella soloist and a choir. Between a soliloquy and a play.

There is a conversation among bloggers, if you can call it that. Threads very loosely joined. I see something in someone else's blog and post a reply in mine. Mostly, though, blogs are monologous. Monoblogs, if you will. Masterblogtion, to be unkind. Conversations, like sex, are so much better when you're not alone. They have the gusto of interpersonal psychology. Dramatic structure. Clarification of thought. Action and reaction.

When we treat multiparty conversations as blogfodder, is it useful? Often. We see this, to a degree, in some of Bill Campbell's interviews. All parties consent, one party cleans up a conversation and publishes it. Then Skype Journal's readers become privy to heretofore private conversation. And they can capitalize on Bill's access and effort. Later, strangers will find it via Google, other bloggers will link to it (it now has a permalink), and that little talk is now history.

Does making private conversations public (some might call it publication) serve a public good? Build the creative commons? Yes, to the degree the conversation itself warrants it. The same logic that applies to blogging and podcasting applies here.

Some tools, like Pamela, make it easier to archive my conversations on servers by blogging the text chats and podcasting the audio ones. Few of my conversations are Google-worthy, let alone blogworthy, but some will be important for private family blogs and other conversations will be handy in private project and team blogs.

So the tools and personal incentives are coming together to make conversation sharing cheap, easy, fun, and rewarding.

Skype and others of its species approach a threshold moment, a tipping point, where their users may contribute more content to the searchable Internet than does the blogosphere.

For every voice chat I have, I have 10 text chats, so it won't take many Skypers publishing conversations to become a significant factor in search results.

As millions of conversations leave digital footprints, joining our collective memory organ, and as we choose to publish some of them the way we do blog posts, we'll see a new connective tissue emerge. A Technorati of dialog. A Google of conversations. So I can discover other people talking about the same local issues that I am. So I can join ongoing conference calls the way some people join a listserv thread.

And as our conversations enter the commons, we will be that much smarter, that much more connected, that much better informed about our world, our communities, and ourselves.

I’m a bit short of time, so I’ll keep my comments brief. But I have to echo James about the just-announced first phase of the Amsterdam municipal fibre network. They are creating an open “layer 1” fiber-optical network, with a diversified ownership model, low cost of deployment, and no public subsidy. This has more significance than meets the eye at first look, since muni network announcements are ten a penny these days.

I’ll chop out the tedious logic (and the effort of constructing an argument) and jump straight to the conclusions:

• The natural unit of purchase of connectivity is not necesarily the household. I see it polarising upwards around the municipal subdivision, and downwards around the devices tethered to a given access network. Application-level price discrimination disappears at one extreme, and is embedded in the form factor of the access device at the other. In response to James’s musing on the privatized market structure, I would only add that the failure was to make it easy for users to co-ordinate in their purchase decisions. We manage it for garbage collection and roof maintenance, but somehow struggle when it comes to telecom.

• The only escape routes from the paradox of the best network are (i) out-distribute the other guy by having a network that reaches places and offers capacity that the others cannot match. Verizon Wireless is following this in the USA, for example, offering speed and coverage the others can’t rival; (ii) move to a new ownership structure that better aligns user and network owner interests. OPLANs are an example, as are vertically integrated muni nets, mesh nets, user-built nets, etc; (iii) Get a politicaly-mandated monopoly/duopoly. This is the Baby Bell approach. Sustainability of this strategy remains in doubt.

• Telcos that divide connectivity from service, by design or through regulation, are in a better position to survive. I think BT will still be around in 30 years, and they’ll bless the day that the regulator forced their access division into being, and wish they hadn’t voluntarily gone further. But they’ve got to get leaner and meaner to compete against upstarts without legacy pension promises, union rules and wannabe media company distractions. Dig deep into your engineering, project management and finance talent and you’ll live to see another day.

• You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. It only takes one Napster to make people see that the music and the disc were separable. It only takes one Amsterdam to succeed to blow away the “it doesn’t work” argument. Bit haulage and application service are equally separable and economically viable independently.

If you’re ever invited to a funeral for a tired and expired telco, I suggest bringing some tulips to lay on the grave. Just don’t grin too much, folk will get suspicious.

via Telepocalypse

Was out taking the new little madam for a walk (well, a carry) this evening when I spotted this O2 mobile advert down our street:

So whilst embodying the obligatory we’re-so-clever advertising visual and wordplay puns, does it actually make people buy more O2 stuff? Did Telefonica get value-for-money when they bought O2 today? Are they buying into a compelling vision?

Well, let’s look at what O2 is selling, and then think what the alternatives might be.

So having this unheard-of “i-mode” thingy (and you can bet 98% of the UK population haven’t heard of it) lets me, um, access the internet and search for jobs. Err, but don’t you use a PC at work on the quiet to surf Monster.com, not your phone? Can’t recruiters just call me like they usually do? And can’t I access the Internet already from my phone? Won’t it be expensive? Hmm… where’s the benefit?

And the alternative? Well, perhaps a few of those billions spent on 3G upgrades might have improved the core product that generates 90%+ of the revenue — voice calls — just a bit? One picoiota? A nanocent? Err, nope. No improved voice call quality. Can’t tell if someone is around before calling them — or even if they’re in the country. Zero presence and availability features. Still can’t access your voicemail via a multimodal client, listen to voicemails out of sequence. And so on.

I love this industry. No other is as screwed up in such wonderful and creative ways.

PS — The only mention of i-mode on the O2 home page is buried away, the main promotion is for an unrelated prepaid discount campaign, and a search box to help you hunt it down? You’ve got to be kidding me. Nice to see such joined-up marketing.

PPS — The hyphenation of i-mode is guaranteed to make word-of-mouth spread slower. Why have some name that’s hard to spell in Google? Even O2 can’t make up their mind: the advert URL is “…/i-mode”, whereas on their home page it’s “…/imode”.

via Telepocalypse

Noticed in Tesco that the mobile phone rack has shrunk in half for the Xmas season, with digicams filling the space instead. Tesco, as one of the world’s most astute and profitable retailers, generally gets these things right. Which tells us that for all the hype, “convergence” isn’t automatically a given, and when it happens it can be slow. Also doesn’t bode well for mobile as as a hot Xmas item — can you spell “saturated”?

But what’s really interesting is this. There are no 3G phones. Zero. Tesco is unable to articulate a value story in 3G for the everyday UK mobile customer. There’s no benefit to 3G that the consumate marketers at Tesco are able to spin that justifies any premium price or shelf space!

Doesn’t the inability of Tesco to stock and market 3G call into question, just a teeny bit, the strategic nous of those leading the industry to the world of IMS (a.k.a “3G mk 2”)? Actually, it reminds me a bit of yesterday’s post. Note that the O2 tagline is “Internet at the touch of a button”, when it’s anything but! As is the telco way, they’re conflating a service (Web) with connectivity (Internet). If it really was Internet at the touch of a button (any why bother with the button?) we’d all have a superior voice and messaging experience on O2 devices courtesy of Skype, MSN, Yahoo et al. Now that would be something to crow about.

PS - Note to US readers. Tesco is broadly the equivalent of Target, although the focus is more on food in most stores, and the quality of the food is a bit higher than the often mediocre efforts in the US supermarket sector.

via Telepocalypse

Richard Zhao Liang and Bill Campbell.

Although the worldwide VoIP market is booming and Skype has wooed millions of users, its road to China is not so bright as in other parts of the world, especially for revenue.
There are four kinds of VoIP services: phone to phone, phone to PC, PC to phone, PC to PC. In China, the phone to phone and phone to PC are clearly defined in law as the basic telecom services that no one besides these six services providers can provide: China Mobile, China Telecom, China Netcom, China Unicom, China Railcom, and China Satellite Com.).

The Ministry of Information Industry (MII), according to the notification no. 413(2005) on July 18, will continue to ban commercial PC-phone VoIP services, except for a trial at four cities countrywide: two for China Telecom at South China (Shenzhen and ShangRao, Jiangxi Province), while two for China Netcom at North China (Changchun, Jilin Province and Tai’an, Shandong Province). During the service trial by Shenzhen Telecom (a subsidiary company of China Telecom), the price of VoIP phone is about 2.5 cents (US) for both domestic and international calls.

A joint venture with TOM Software will not help Skype generate revenue in China. Skype would require a joint-venture with China Telecom or China Netcom. But without clear commercial benefits to those two fixed line carriers such a joint venture is unlikely to occur.

Skype’s only source of revenue from mainland China will only be from SkypeIn and SkypeOut originating from outside of China. And none of that revenue will flow to Skype’s Partner TOM Software. So the marketing approaches shown below might be suitable for Skype into China:

First, continuously fight for an increasing market share at IM and PC to PC market, competing against QQ, MSN, YIM, Google Talk, Sina UC, and NetEase PP.
Second, cooperate with those smartphone/handset/pda hardware vendors for solutions like USB-plugable PC phones.

Skype’s competitive advantages come from its voice quality, encryption, and ease of use.

See original post here.

Is it all over for Skype? As Google Talk launched tonight with an Orkuttian viral shove provided by Gmail. At first glance it could be Skype's worst nightmare or the kick start necessary to refocus Skype. If you missed the buzz, Google Talk is the long awaited and predicted IM / Voice client. It won't be over for a while and the battle will take to the trenches with Yahoo, MSN and AOL battling to the end. This is a first salvo. Don't expect Google's feature set additions to follow Skype's path immediately to Telecom as Google has other opportunities sitting there within its empire. These are my first impressions.

• Extreme Simplicity. If you have a Gmail account you can just log in. The client is very simple.
  
• Find buddies quickly. If they are in Gmail then you can make hundreds of invites very quickly. Authorization is simple.
  
• Presence. Simplified and more intelligent than ever with customized field options that add new fun to presence. It's about time!
  
• Chat. Very basic, no emoticons etc. Still it's clean and archived and I bet searchable (if not now soon) by google desktop. Chat uses XMPP and thus iChat and Jabber clients can connect directly to Google Talk. You can also add it immediately to Trillian. (Trillian could be quite a winner). Guess that will put Google Talk presence on mobiles too!
  
• Talk. Talk is chat centric. Ie click to chat rather than Skype's click to call. Clicking opens a chat dialogue box. You then initiate a call from the chat window. Talk quality matches Skype and is better than Yahoo.
  
• Chat Window Organization. Windows self organize in an interesting fashion until closed.
  
• No profiles and no friendly pictures at this time.

How it really worked.

I had 8 conversations all around the world. Some of the voice connections didn't connect immediately and felt like they failed. There was just no sound. Sometimes the sound started after the call was connected for 30 seconds or more. This is likely just a short term bug. I enjoyed the inbound ring tone. Distinctively different from Skype. The invite process was very simple, building my list very elegant.

What's Missing?

From a Skype user's point of view: Almost everything. There are no profiles, no photos / pictures, no voice mail, no multi-conference or multi-chat. Plus there is no SkypeIn or SkypeOut capabilities. This is not a phone replacement. The multi-chat and conference calling should be easy to duplicate. The telephone system more difficut. However, each name is a SIP name and that is designed to connect with Vling and Gizmo project in a very short time. Plus with rumors around Google raising money, a TMobile USA purchase can't be that far away. That would provide a user base, the WiFi hotspots and most importantly the chance to integrate mobile numbers with VoIP.

Where's the Strength?

Talk is already integrated with Gmail and thus links nicely with IG, Google's personal content portal. So when will GoogleTalk have access to Orkut (profiles / social networking - pictures and profiles) Blogger (another place to share presence), Desktop (archive searching), Maps (location information) and instantly the whole Jabber/XMPP community. How quickly can Google bring these all together. Then they already have a photosharing program etc. Google has all the elements to bulk up to a Yahoo like client very quickly. Add in Ad Sense etc. Very neat models are likely to emerge. I heard from one punter tonight they had told their mother to buy more Google shares.

Developer Talk

Google has a great page outlining their preliminary plans and open strategy for the future of "talk."

Google's mission is to make the world's information universally accessible and useful. Google Talk, which enables users to instantly communicate with friends, family, and colleagues via voice calls and instant messaging, reflects our belief that communications should be accessible and useful as well. We're committed to open communications standards, and want to offer Google Talk users and users of other service providers alike the flexibility to choose which clients, service providers, and platforms they use for their communication needs.
Google

How does Skype stack up? Yahoo?

• Google may win on philosopjy alone (see above mission) or the resources in dolars and manpower. However today, while Google may get it's Orkuttian swell of new users isn't actually an acceptable replacement client for either Skype or Yahoo. Both do more better for their current audiences.
• On features, Skype is still ahead and if they would speed up their development and releases of call forwarding, VM improvements, Video, and their Presence Server they still have a chance althougth the market has shifted dramatically. Yahoo is bulking up however still does nothing really well. That may change.

Where should Skype's strategy start?

Open Up! By contrast with Google, Skype is on a philosophical back foot, well balanced. Being closed is no longer an asset, so Skype can compete only on its design, features and capabilities. To open up, the Skype chat client must adopt the Jabber/XMPP protocol, accelerating its interconnect and encouraging developers to "stick" / "start" developing products around the API. So far Google hasn't announced an API (count the hours). They will need one even if just for hardware. Skype will be forced to open up many aspects of its interface now.

I can recommend this short but thought-provoking article over at The Mobile Technology weblog.

In essence, it critiques mobile J2ME and BREW because they're denied access to the communications-centric functions of the mobile handset.

I've long thought the same thing. What I'd like to see is these environments deploy "opaque objects." This means that they would be able to query and manipulate things like your address book, but without actually seeing the data. Only the phone OS would see the data itself; the program would just hold an object handle. Functions like iteration through the address book, comparison, and set operations, would all be offerred. A number of user interface components would be offered native to the device to perform standard operations like the selection of one or more contacts, or the addition of new entries.

This would help to reduce the danger of privacy and security lapses. A progam that can't see your actual address book data can do less harm to your privacy.

I also believe that the provisioning of access permissions of applications could be substantially improved. When I download a J2ME application, and it wants to access the network, I'm forced to go through a handset-mediated screen asking every session if I want to accept once, repeatedly (but just for the session - not forever), or not at all. This is a gross inconvenience. We don't pop up a "do you really want to make this phone call" confirmation when you press the green button.

What I'd rather see is the permissions get set at install or purchase time. The install-time part is fairly self-explanatory - you set the access parameters to resources like profile, address book and network. The purchase-time one is more subtle, and really refers to the wired Web. The download app would come with a digitally signed set of permissions from the retail environment, where you have provisioned your access preferences. When you buy a certain networked game, you just tick a box saying "I understand that this game will be given access to my address book, and may access the network incurring packet charges." The appropriate permissions are then tagged on, and you are never asked again on the handset.

Some of these could be parameter-driven. For example, my email application may be allowed to transfer up to 1Mb a day without asking, but above that I should be asked to give my consent. Waiting until the app is on the phone is too late to start provisioning this kind of thing.

This would possibly give network operators' in-house mobile portals a large advantage, as third party sites may not have access to this signing facility and their user experience will suffer. Users downloading from third party sites would have to deal with more intrusive access screens on the handset.

Naturally, a balance is to be struck between privacy and convenience. You can ask too many authorisation questions and put people off. But today's model of simply not allowing some highly valuable functions to be accessed by handset applications is decidedly not convenient, either. There are many low-level functions in the phone which could contribute to an enhanced application experience, if only the operators and handset makers weren't so scared of exposing then.

This model also extends to Windows applications. We won't see it, because Microsoft has gotten lost in the wilderness, but here's what I'd like Windows to do when I install a new app. I should be presented with a human-digestible list of the key permissions it is requesting: "Access the web site 'foo.com'", "Modify files in the 'My Documents' folder", etc. (By default, it should only have access to its own preferences directory. And I should be able to increase or decrease permissions - not just "take it or leave it".)

Just because an app gets a buffer overflow or has a control logic bug shouldn't mean it gets to trash my whole hard drive and access the whole Net. All those worms that download via browser bugs would have a hard time, because being able to execute arbitraty code wouldn't automatically enable access to all OS functions. If you go to hax0rs.com by accident, and get a pup-up from the Windows OS asking if you want to authorise access to your address book, you should be deeply suspicious.

(As an aside, the security model of Windows is very broken, and will stay that way, because actions are done on behalf of users, and not applications. Just because I downloaded and installed an application doesn't mean it should be trusted as if it were me. The user model doesn't match the trust model. Unix/Linux is barely any better, but at least you can fake it by creating a different user for each app and constraining its actions accordingly. Ideally you'd have a file system where any haywire application could be terminated and the changes it had made simply undone. Windows also doesn't make it easy to distinguish pop-ups that have come from the OS itself from those generated by the application. Another security headache.)

I hope you've managed to follow this rather abstract stuff, but really it's very simple. If you're going to give applications access to data and facilities that could harm the user, you need to put in appropriate controls, and make the provisioning of them simple. It may be just my ignorance of current developments in 3GPP standards etc., but it seems we are lacking on all three fronts.

via Telepocolypse

Skype's new video challenge really highlights their current strategic crisis. With more than half a million Skypers playing around with various video solutions for Skype, it shows what even a nascent developer community can achieve quickly. Do the new video entrants suggest Skype rethink strategically their development attention?

Other companies are learning Skype is a perfect piggyback to success. Both vSkype and Video4Skype (now Video4IM) have "relationships" with investors in common with Skype. With well over 500K users trying these products in days of their launch it's clear that Skype users are willing to try new things. The value of the SkypeAPI just become even more attractive.

Concurrently we are seeing the first clues to problems Skype is having coping with developers. These video products are being developed often without any input from Skype at all. So with video, Skype has gone from working on their own video solutions to watching three other companies prototype increasingly sophisticated applications. In a well-managed developer world these would not be surprises. I have good reason to think they were.

Questions Raised by Video:
Should Skype be trying to develop their own video solution? Or should they be working with developers to enable better video solutions? Should they turn over what they have learned to developers so far....? Do they need control over video to have control over their platform strategy?

This feels like a prime opportunity to create a real developers platform. If they can only let go and think on a dime. Think Playstation. Video is the game equivalent. By contrast what video needs is 3D audio. Skype didn't invent their audio codec. However, they must find a way to keep their lead in voice. The rest of the VoIP market now understands that. Video without voice has limited appeal.

A more detailed look - starting with video examples.

1. The power an effective developer community could bring to Skype.

Example 1: First they had to beat Apple's Tiger version of iChat. Now they find themselves on the backfoot with other video programs enhancing the user experience. These new Skype video entrants aren't just small companies or one-man bands. Both Spontania and VSkype have real backing. By contrast it appears Skype has one key engineer working on video.

Example 2: Look2Skype developed an Outlook plug-in and separately, other developers have been working on them. Skype has hired and developed their own Outlook and IE solutions of which the Outlook plugin was released recently. From my perspective this hardly looks like a priority and just killed another developer's product that has been out there for months. In Peter Henning's post, he writes they went out to the developer community and bought the developer. These two products are more tactical than strategic.

So what should Skype develop internally? What should they enable developers to do? Their indecision traces to their lack of vision for their platform and where they want to draw the roadmap for developers.

2. The challenges and the integration needs to the GUI that are currently lacking in the API.

Example 1: VSkype added a tab and icon to the Skype Client. They are perfectly positioned so even when you move the client the buttons follow it around. Now it's not clear that vSkype has broken any rules or agreements in creating this solution. It does demonstrate that enhanced products will need greater access to the GUI. In the case of video it may even make sense for Skype to enable the competition so the best product wins. That's my observation on MT-plugins. A best one seems to emerge.

Example 2: The SkypeAPI exposes important information about others and not just yourselves. There is no negotiation with your buddies when you authorize each other. Thus, once you are a buddy I can do anything I want with the online status info you send me. The presence information is some of the most important social networking information available. Skype must create solutions for layered presence and aliases.

3. Time to question where development efforts are going and what priorities.

Example 1: Voice Mail. I recommended voice messaging. It took them months to change and recognize the positioning advantage. We shared Skypecasting and Skype is a major podcasting tool today. The VM solution hasn't adapted to the challenge or the opportunity. By contrast, Steve Jobs is organizing Podcasting in iTunes and the bloggers etc love it. Gizmo launched and many told me they would switch for voice mail. When it comes to viral marketing the blogosphere would be all over Podcasting enhancements to Skype. By contrast an Outlook solution is a yawn.

Example 2: Voice Mail. I should get a copy. I should be able to apply a topic to voice messages, I should be able to confirm that I want to send. I should be able to forward messages under certain conditions. Etc. Zero progress since voice mail launched.

Example 3: Recent focus groups were held in both Silicon Valley and London. Focus groups aren't necessarily the best way to find out where to go next. Still some of the questions that were asked were intriguing. They included payment for ringtones, extended conference calling and some form of premium member status. These two provide an example of what I believe is shallow thinking, not probing where the real future value is likely to be. I have no reason to believe they asked about voice messaging, or podcasting etc. Ringtones shows a particularly short-sighted vision. Now play ringtones with iTunes - that's an idea.

Example 4: Billing and accounting. Not only needs work, it need solutions so developers can create programs that can use it as a back-end payment system. Every mobile phone co in the world wants to be your wallet. If Skype would work with the developers it could have more than half a chance.

Example 5: While "grouping" features are bound to come in the buddylist, they aren't likely to solve the need for 'alias', layering in identity and improved gradations in presence management. Similarly developers can't push the right data into Skype. For example when will Skype accept location data from me and represent it in my presence information?

New Threats are Emerging. Three examples that could change the playing field.

Example 1: RSSosphere. RSS and related XML solutions are radically changing how we gather information and how it is delivered. The real time nature means this will impact on IM / Text and Chat Systems. IM systems have not innovated. With voice currently stuck on a new plateau reinventing the real time infomation flow could get people moving again.

Example 2: Mobility Integration: Presence systems need enhancing. Location information is critical for effective networking. Dodgeball is just one example Opening the API to accept location information would be a big step forward.

Example 3: Voice Activation. Skype with their centralized contact list has a huge opportunity to provide a voice activated dialing system that would automatically update to mobiles etc. Concurrently voice authentication software can confirm the caller is who they say they are in the first x seconds of the call.

Example 4: Skype Profile information is already being used in new API related programs. The opportunity to port information into other programs by and under the control of users is just beginning to be understood. vCard enhancements are good. Profiles should become a "larger" development item and get the voice feature built in. These are game changers.

Strategically there are some obvious successes not leveraged.

• Voice Messaging and Conference calling --- see above.
  
• SkypeIn - There is no call forwarding option. Concurrently Business Development hasn't made the case to get mobile operators on board successfully yet. There remains a risk for E911 services.
  
• Presence Indicators: As launched nothing changed or added.
  Profile information remains static. It is apparently going out the API faster now and is better integrated with vcard options. That's a postive step.
  
• Multi-Chat and Chat: Archives remain a mess. They are not integrated with VM, and call information. Many of Skype features remain hidden unless you know where they are.

This started out with a video example. Then it becomes clear there are many competing strategic interests. As the complexity increases it become more difficult for developers to understand their safe bets and how they may make money. There are good reasons for Skype to integrate video into the client --- and that should be another post. I do hope Skype is looking closely at Spontania as they have some very neat mobile technology emerging.

These points are rasied not because Skype should dictate or layout their full roadmap. Rather the dialogue should be with the developer community. If Skype really wants to harness "our" energies then they simply have to let "us" in.

Stuart Henshall, Skype Journal's publisher, posted his Grade "D-minus" for Skype's developer ecosystem. I think it's too harsh. Slightly. I give their developer program to date a "C".

Two reasons: My metrics biases are a hair kinder. And I cut Skype a lot of slack for their small size and tender years.

"Doctor, the labs are in."

Out of a gazillion things that describe the state of an independent developer ecosystem, which do you check? What labs do you order? [No, seriously! Which ones?]

Generally, you model what you want the system to do. You diagram the states and flows. Then you seek out metrics that sense general system health, that help diagnose problems and prescribe solutions.

In this case, you want a large and vital business ecosystem. It's many outside developer subcommunities, several subcultures within Skype, and the processes you design and deploy to keep virtuous cycles going.

Some of my favorite measures...

1. How many communications has Skype initiated to ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) this month? Include calls, chats, email, visits to developer-focused web pages, etc.
2. Number of registered individual developers. SkypeAPI knowledge and talent live in the conversations among developers.
3. Number of registered individual developers who put the Skype API on their CV/resume.
4. Number of registered developer companies.
5. Number of signups on the main developer listserv (is there one? are there focused ones for each product?)
6. Days from time new feature is announced until an API is published
7. The existence of draft APIs and public forums for discussion of those APIs
8. Number of developers with Skype tattoos
9. Percent of Skype's in-house developers blogging in public

We seek qualities like vision, heart, strategy, transparency, growth, trust. Operational competence, execution, responsiveness. I think a lot of it is there, but shrouded or repressed.

My sense is the problems are those of young adulthood, in the organizational sense.

For example,

Message Control Freaks. These are "clueless" marketers, in the Cluetrain Manifesto sense. They stifle communication across the corporate firewall. They focus on message compliance instead of dialog. Every company needs people like this, but stronger voices in opposition must prevail.

BizDev-Driven Engineering Priorities. Money talks. So do wealthy partners. Do partner needs really match those of your core audience? Are they pulling for elegance and simplicity? Or for feature overkill? Again, balance counts.

Balance is a sure sign of organizational and managerial maturity.

Skype Technologies is not yet Grown Up

It would be great if we could index for corporate maturity.

A story: When I was hired to train and certify computer dealers by Compaq (employee 56), it was part of a comprehensive strategy to develop an independent reseller channel. Two rungs up the hiring chain from me, Compaq hired the best people they could find who had similar experience selling hardware through reseller channels. A few came from IBM but most were execs at copier companies.

These guys knew everything about keeping dealers happy.

• Lots of information.
• Point of sale support.
• Terms and conditions.
• Inventory and order management.
• Scarce model allocation.
• Co-branding.
• Cooperative advertising.
• Margin creep.
• Territory density control.
• Education and training.
• Rewards and recognition for everyone involved in the dealership, from junior service techs and sales people to managers and integration engineers.

They hired the people and built an organization who could roll-out a channel into major US markets in a year, into world metros in two.

Compaq also had to convince software developers that it was IBM Compatible, that their software would run. Compaq wouldn't have launched successfully if Lotus 123 hadn't launched at the same time and on Compaq's first luggable.

So Compaq mounted an aggressive phone and advertising campaign to recruit software developers, to convince them to test and certify their software. It worked. We published thick directories of compatible products. These directories went to computer buyers and to the dealer channel, because software sales sold computers.

Applications sell platforms.

Skype is like that first and second year of Compaq. Scrappy founders. Growing so you don't know everyone anymore, or even ("we have a department for that?") what they do. The culture of adrenaline. The overwhelming number of demands on time, the proliferation of choices. The sudden fame by association.

I was at Compaq when they grew through this stage. It's a tough phase. People make lots of mistakes because they're making lots of decisions. You just hope you know which ones are key and that you take an extra beat to choose well.

At this time last year, Skype was half the size it is now. In fewer locations. Each time headcount doubles, they will have new organizational and operational challenges.

So I'd give Skype's Developer Ecosystem a "C"

On an absolute scale, with 100% being world-class performance, I give them a "D" for the first six months of 2005. I concur with Stuart's rating of the developer program. They've made more than their share of errors. The effects have been expensive and painful for developers, and have sown fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

But remember they are a small company. Microsoft and IBM and Sun are a hundred times larger than Skype. And they've had a generation to build and optimize their independent developer programs. Skype is just staffing up its developer program, and they seem on course. So I bring their grade for the half-year to a "C". Better days ahead.

Skype Technologies S.A. is failing its independent software developers.

What must Skype do to develop a successful developer community? How would you score them? How do you approach such a problem?

Developing an effective developer community requires more than just the desire, it require a model, something that will stretch the internal team and inspire developers. It must be so simple that the parties get it. So effective that key dialogs can start.

Eight key dimensions drive the success and behaviors necessary to nurture an effective developer community. This is not just about words. It is also having the right types of personalities and roles involved to make it happen. Too often a developer community is viewed with systems focus. I'd offer up that it is about people. People in all these roles

Judge for yourself: How does Skype's management of the Skype API and developer program score on each of these factors? Where could they improve? How would this map versus Microsoft or Java or...... Rate them "A" to "F" on each of these. Rate them today, then rate where you think they will be in six months. Are they on tract to be the ultimate partner for developers? What new ground must they break to get there?

1. Architecture Evangelism: Are the systems and documentation for developing your product on the Skype platform clear and comprehensive? Are short-term feature release timetables published? Are road maps disclosed and updated? Are contacts easy to find? Do you know who to talk to? Is access managed and measured? Is the developer education program diverse (accommodating many kinds of programmers), dispersed (geographically and across time zones), stepped (from beginners to gurus, from generalists to specialists), affordable, and comprehensive?

   Score: D-

   In Six Months? This is totally dependent on Lenn Pryor. C maybe.

2. Creative Opportunities: Does the API expose many features? Can they be combined to do novel and interesting things? Do they provoke innovative and competitive products and services? What unique opportunities does the API offer? Can solutions bridge APIs etc? Does the Skype developer program provide tools for experimenting and testing a developer's work in progress?

   Score: B.

   In Six Months? This will be a C- unless they expose more

3. User Experience: Does Skype help developers create "star" products and services? Toolkits? Is there effective brand synergy and marketing impact? Are third party tools seamlessly blended into the Skype user experience? Best practices: Apple's UI standards.

   Score: F.

   In Six Months? We'll see whether they become developer friendly C-.

4. Supportive Team: How effectively does the ecosystem work as a team, as a community? How free and productive is the exchange of ideas? How effective is Skype's communication and updates to the community? What is the opportunity for co-development with Skype? What are the risks of Skype obsoleting third party products through surprise changes to the API? When and how does Skype compete directly with developers and other partners? How well is Skype staffing to support the developer community? Best practices: Microsoft Developer Network.

   Score: F.

   In Six Months? Unlikely to see a roadmap in less than six months. Could still be an F although a frustrated and trying F.

5. Legal Agreements and Public Policy: Are contracts and deals between Skype and developers effective? Are they fair? Do they reflect the realities of how programmers develop software and how users use software? Is the legal language clear? Are accurate translations easily available? Are the license terms and conditions best-in-industry? How much does Skype protect developer rights and interests? How well does Skype protect developers by protecting end user privacy? How actively does Skype advocate to governments and industry for personal data privacy, the right to connect, and against hostile regulation?

   Score: F.

   In Six Months? Complete lack of action or general obstruction. This needs to be an A if Skype is to win.

6. Business Exchange: Working on Developer Time: Do you respect the ISV developer's time? How many minutes does it take for a developer to get a technical answer? to apply to the developer program?

   Does the Skype application enable a two way information exchange? Is data flow through the API one way or two-way or even multi-way? How much is static vs dynamic? Exchanges with the client, exchange of information with the user? Security of information? Privacy management, user rights protection? Can developers build on information exchange to create commerce transactions?

   Score F:

   In Six Months? I truly wish for improvement. C.

7. Value Creation: How's the money managed? Integrated? Can payment to the Skype ID be made? Can withdrawals or payments be made? Who pays for services or products? Does Skype offer download "options" for certified software add-ons? Is there a river of monetary opportunity?

   Score: D. Although other free services are creating value on Skype's back.

   In Six Months? D expect little change.

8. Investors & Peers: As a developer can you sit at the table? Do you coexist like eBay resellers, integrated into the financial ecosystem? Is Skype a positive facilitator or are their always barriers? Are investors willing to put money in? Who bankrolls the opportunity? Are business cases relatively easy? Do you travel first class or coach?

   Score: F:

   In Six Months? D at best on current trajectory.

My conclusion.

Now many will say I am very harsh. You are probably right. Most developers would say "Skype is doing their best." "They are a young company." "They basically get it." What developers want is more access and functionality in the API. Communication is a big deal. They also don't want to be screwed by changing Skype road map. I gave the highest score to the API. Without it the only developers interested in Skype would be those applying for a job.

I thought long and hard about posting this blogpost. I did ask other Skype developers. I'm convinced now it has to be said. So this post is more directed to my friends (please don't shoot the messenger) at Skype. It may not be encouraging to get a "negative report card." Still that traces more to a poor attendance record (lack of people) for some of these "streams." Overall the API and developer focus can't afford to be tactical. For example, they focus on what to expose (e.g. voice messaging) rather than on broader strategic issues like how do independent developers make money, create collective value for users. etc. Perhaps thinking more broadly will enable the "score" to change rapidly.

So what score would you give to Skype's Developer Programs? Am I being too harsh? Do you want more systematic metrics? Let me know!

by Jan Geirnaert, an IT/Internet Business Consultant in Malaysia.

I have worked here in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as the IT manager and network administrator for a small non-IT business. One of the many things I did is cutting the cost of the phone bill by implementing Skype as a VoIP solution. These thoughts are not purely IT/technical. My wage was paid by the cost-savings on the telecom-bill.

Here are some issues to be taken into account before implementing Skype. What you read below is how I did it, these are my personal experiences. The standard setup-recommendations can be found on the Skype web site.

Make your case gently and with numbers

Explain properly to all involved management levels and teams (especially Finance and higher management-levels) what the solutions consist off. Don’t go too much into IT-technical issues. Focus on the advantages and the low cost (only your time and skill are important here). Take into account that VoIP (Skype included) is something new and a low-level entry is better than no entry at all. If you make things sound complicated, it just won’t work.

Do not be aversive or aggressive towards existing technologies that have been put in place. Introducing a new technology in real life situations has to be done by focusing on the advantages of the technology for the existing users. Today and now. If you start comparing with existing solutions based on older but valid (operationally speaking) technology you will be seen as an evangelist. In the end the customer will choose for things that work. Being right or wrong is not an issue here. Making something work and pinpointing the cost is.

The advantage of having chosen Skype is that the implementation took only some upgrading of the security layers in the existing Windows XP network and adding more bandwidth to the existing ADSL-Internet connection. [Ed: As opposed to investing in an entirely new telephone system, with digital PBX, cabling, and phones.]

It is advisable to check the security settings and activate bandwidth monitoring, software-firewall on the systems that are going to use the Skype solution.

Creating a basic user-policy is useful too.

An easy way to get the project going could be to ask for the existing phone bill and spread it out over 4 quarters (Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4). Put this in a spreadsheet. Make a quick analysis of the current recurrent phone bill on fixed phones, mobile phones (actually anything that goes out via the traditional PABX system). The reasoning to apply here: by conducting phone traffic via the Internet, the phone bill of the existing PSTN-traffic will go down. Keep track of this. After one year you will be able to see what the effect of a Skype implementation is on the telecom bill.

Configuration and Deployment

At the time of implementation there were no USB-link-boxes or super de luxe devices available. So I choose simple headsets (0.5 euro each). Installation was very simple. Plug in the headset, install Skype and off you go. Once you save some money (or you could do it from the start), you can put devices in place that link your Skype via USB to your existing phone. Nobody likes to sit with a headset on... But this topic is the topic of using the external hardware devices (so many options here). Make sure you test the hardware solution first.

Once Skype is activated you will encounter the problem of the naming convention. People will always try to do what they want if options are given to choose. So preventing a wild spread of all kind of names (resulting in not knowing who is who) I applied this rule on the naming: (company-abbreviation)-(country-iso-code)-surname. If you have those annoying users who still want their own nickname instead of company related names, well the surname could be replaced by the nickname. In order to avoid this you can simply create all user names before the users start making them. Creating the user names for your population will also avoid wide-spread of the passwords. Do enter an email-address in the Skype program during installation and fill in the full name.

What is missing in the Skype-ID-fields now are 3 fields : company-name, department, function/position of the user. Now thinking further on this matter of “who is who,” integration with LDAP servers would be nice. These would be like LDAP integration with Outlook. But not having access to all that technology I used a simple trick: installing Plaxo 2.0. (www.plaxo.com). In the IM field you can then mention the Skype ID. Works and it keeps the costs down. This is ideal in an environment that has no central email-LDAP-address book. Remember I am talking about a solution for companies that have multiple locations, external partners who are connected to each other only via some computers, and ADSL Internet connections.

Actually spreading the name list is quite simple. Set up one central account, support@ (for example), and add the new users to the office list. Then send around an email (anybody can setup account, externals included, which is kind of confusing) stating that this or that has been added/deleted. Ask people to add / authorise the user to their list.

After having done the implementation, try to make the users add their picture or company logo. This adds to the security features of Skype too, since Skype seems to allow you to login twice or more with the same account. I assume that the picture will not appear if somebody else but yourself logs in (since the picture resides on your hard disk). Your voice and your face are unique, you better get this done quickly.

I never engage in a talk with external sources without having heard their voice. P2P solutions have the advantage you can quickly connect to "everybody," and it can be everybody. Avoid leaking of valuable information. With some luck you will be able to use Skype for the voice traffic in no time. On top of that, it has an interesting instant messenging feature and let's you send around files in no time.

Once the users are happy with the existing Skype-functionality, get back to Finance and Management and show that the Skype system can be used to make calls to mobile and fixed phones. You can then start setting up a general company billing account (SkypeOut) for the fixed computers. For some users you will have to setup individual accounts. Be careful not to compromise the credit card info of multiple users. It might be more useful to use a company credit card that has some web protection. You can actually "top up" user accounts by using one credit card, which has the advantage of centralised financial control.

I guess that is about it (for now). After implementation you should provide the user with a basic "how to setup and use" manual. Let them get used to the system and take it from there. Keep track of the support requests. You will learn a lot from those questions.

Open issues...

Some problems and open questions remain.

• How to get centralised control on the number of calls generated on a "company account"?
• Can the concept of a mail server be applied on Skype?
• How to keep track of the files and information sent via Skype?
• How to get rid of Skype spammers and SPIT?

If you want to give me your ideas and thoughts on this, just callto:tropicaljantie.

Reprinted by permission from Jan in Malaysia.

Two years ago I wrote a couple of posts challenging Skype to think brand, humanize it, and embrace the social side of communications that the always-on world promised ... globally. There is some inspiration and still the most important "audience" questions remain in Skype's latest brand story - A New Face.

Today, Skype is thinking of humanizing their brand - the blog is a great example. The brand changes Malthe shares with us are a great indicator they are serious about the brand. The speech bubble is an inspired selection, and the new film is sweet (not for me), all very suggestive of a youthful consumer as their core Target Audience.

If that's the case, then the results must get kids off IM and into Skype. That is not easy, talking habits vary, often they don't want to talk, and particulary not to other kids outside their close community.

This means that Skype must come up with new ideas for enhancing features for the Youth ... it is much more than converging Livejournal with chat and voice or integrating into new social networking products. It needs the complete reinvention of IM to really shift the playing field. The current chat format won't do it and yet that is where the opportunity is. Is Branding now running ahead of product? While you may have youth colours and design - what I want to know is where are the features that will bring in the youth?

Moreover, when I see that Skype has a 35% share of global VOIP, then users are not all kids. Skype has to protect and grow what is already there, many of its users are like you and me, many are small business users and consultants working globally. What messages does the Skype brand wish to send us today, without creating dissonance with current perceptions based on two years of use? What elements can they retain, which should they dump, which are core and vital, which can they extend and enhance into stronger imprints? And in the face of competition, which bring loyalty?

These aren't easy to tackle, given the immense global nature of Skype. It is going to be quite a challenge. Their new tagline seems to embrace this challenge - “The whole world can talk for free.”

Excerpts from my posts written just two weeks after Skype launched follow.

From Living Skype the Brand:

- For Skype to be really successful it must be more than technology or "disrupting" the old phone system. It's about welcoming in tomorrow. We are in the age of P2P telephony. How people share in these riches will define the potency of the solution.

- So it is not only communicate P2P Telephony... which seems like maybe just a new thing... go global with the thought. International calls are free!

The new tagline is "“The whole world can talk for free.”"

- You need someone focussing on the message, holding the business true to a set of core values that rest around people, relationships and innovative communications. ...At the core, Skype is not beholden to the big company, but the emerging community.

From Skype's Disruptive Branding:

- ... the color choice. Purple --- a mixture of red and blue. Strongly associated with relationships and identity. Purple is the colour of magic and deep emotions. This seems like an interesting color direction to go down. So let's use it to talk the magical relationships. The elimination of cost barriers to good conversation. It's first iteration... fairly naked by comparison to other IM clients. Now the downside...Too much purple is probably immature or too erotic. It's a great color for school girls - it's not in this rendition that the color for the world's next phone company. And that is where the branding can get really interesting.

# Ownership. Consumers have a greater degree of control. We can swarm on Skype or another system. Ownership and the profit model (is there one?) will determine the service. Consumers perceive more control over "THEIR" data in this environment.

# Brand: The brand records of all the players is simply lousy. I've already commented on the Skype brand. It's going to have to do a much better job to foster trust to be "the people's" telephone company. If they can't work it out. Someone will. There's a David n Golaith story in this.

We're two years on today!

For those of you that don't know, Malthe is the brand custodian at Skype. He created the Skype brand manual and frankly understands the importance of a brand's "handwriting". His intuitive feel was a pleasure to listen to at Reboot in Denmark. In my view it is time to broaden the creative tension that often exists between smart research, deep target audience discussions and the creative team. Skype is growing too fast for intuition only to rule.

Streaming video of Stuart Henshall's talk before the London Ecademy (Windows Media Player) about presence, networks, and more. via cherryleaf's blog.

Sociologists keep trying to explain that phones are a rich medium for research. My Social Fabric is a tool for helping you visualize, analyze, and manage your own contacts, associates, friends, and family. When was the last time you called your mother? Can't wait for the Skype plug-in. via the We make money not art blog, via Emily on Smartmobs. Visualizes the state of your relationships, including how often you contact people and how.

In the media...

Skype Me! (The Book), is coming out soon. By Markus Daehne of the German Skype forums.

BusinessWeek cover package for June 20, 2005: The Power of Us: Mass collaboration on the Internet is shaking up business.

The 35 employees at Meiosys Inc., a software firm in Palo Alto, Calif., didn't know they were joining a gang of telecom-industry marauders. They just wanted to save a few bucks. Last year they began using Skype, a program that lets them make free calls over the Internet, with better sound quality than regular phones, using headsets connected to their PCs. Callers simply click on a name in their Skype contact lists, and if the person is there, they connect and talk just like on a regular phone call. "Better quality at no cost," exults Meiosys Chief Executive Jason Donahue. Poof! Almost 90% of his firm's $2,000 monthly long-distance phone bill has vanished. With 41 million people now using Skype, plus 150,000 more each day, it's no wonder AT&T (T ) and MCI Inc. (MCIP ) are hanging it up.

How can a tiny European upstart like Skype Technologies S.A. do a number on a trillion-dollar industry? By dialing up a vast, hidden resource: its own users. Skype, the newest creation from the same folks whose popular file-sharing software Kazaa freaked out record execs, also lets people share their resources -- legally. When users fire up Skype, they automatically allow their spare computing power and Net connections to be borrowed by the Skype network, which uses that collective resource to route others' calls. The result: a self-sustaining phone system that requires no central capital investment -- just the willingness of its users to share. Says Skype CEO Niklas Zennström: "It's almost like an organism."

WaPo letter to the editor: Someone Pays for That 'Free' Phone Call

Regardless of whether one finds Niklas Zennstrom's unusual business ventures right or wrong ["File-Sharing Pioneer Turns to Free Internet Calling," front page, June 4], it is important to note that his "free" Internet file- exchange and "free" phone services are not actually free and require a complex infrastructure that is maintained and paid for by someone.

Jonathan Krim's article on Skype Technologies SA made it seem as though the lack of a traditional telephone network, with poles and wires and technicians, somehow means that Skype does not require any infrastructure to operate. While the service may be free to the public, the Internet on which it depends is a complex hardware and software network that is maintained by an assortment of private and public entities. This doesn't come free, which is why Internet users must generally pay a service provider for access and why many useful Web sites are festooned with advertising.

If Mr. Zennstrom had to pay for even a micro-fraction of the infrastructure that make his "free" ventures work, he would have been out of business before he started.

ERIC WENOCUR, Silver Spring

Skype makes friends...

Distribution agreements in time for summer... Mobile phone distributor Brightpoint, strong in retail and college markets, will promote Skype through its channels. In a similar arrangement, Intel will bundle Skype.

"Intel will revamp a heap of its software utilities and bits and bobs in the second half of this year. ... It will also introduce a series of promotions in the second half of this year, including Premium Video, Digital Media Adaptor, Remote Control - a Logitech Harmony remote - and a VoIP Skype offer as bundles."

In the world of products, a little irony: Packet conditioner and policy manager supports Skype. The same system blocks KaZaA.

Popular Telephony announces they're shipping what I call a "Something-Skype Right Now Product": PeerioBiz with Gateway for Skype Peer-To-Peer VoIP System for SoHo. This leverages Skype's hotness and user base, fitting Peerio's decentralized architecture. More telephony vendors will follow.

Another meaning for mobile: Skype on a USB memory stick from U3. Just made for the millions who use Internet cafes. And the rest of us who want to keep their personal Skype voice mail, contacts, and call logs off a company computer.

Someonenew.com launches the German version of their dating site.

How much value is there to rumors? Will Skype get sold to Yahoo? Who benefits? Skype probably benefits from rumors like this. Perhaps even Yahoo does. I wonder what the impact is on Yahoo shares today? (YHOO)

My perspective is it is way too early for Skype to move. The brand Yahoo adds nothing to Skype and potentially hampers long term Skype strategy. Yahoo sees the world from a Portal and desktop point of view. By contrast Skype is working toward the mobile market. Yes, potentially complementary. Would Yahoo leave Skype alone?

Perhaps the most interesting market for a business deal would be Japan. There Yahoo and Skype could find some consumer synergies around Yahoo's broadband offer. LiveDoor has also been successful. The real prize will be around the social networking aspects and real-time calling. I don't think Skype has the tech done yet to announce such a deal. Still, in the East they don't have the same hangups about ID's and aliases. Thus if there is to be a rumor... forget Yahoo! USA and look to where Skype has made interesting inroads. Asia is the place to look!

It might be too soon for Skype to be cashing out, and I am not sure if Yahoo can justify the big ticket valuation that would be slapped on Skype. There maybe a revenue share deal in the offering! That would make my recent post on Skype, more relevant. Om Malik

The rumor started here, went here, and is now here. I still see few benefits for Skype in this. Then I've missed the picture before.

I was in the middle of some great General Tsou's chicken and the final battle in The Last Samurai when the phone rang. I paused the movie, swallowed and answered. It was a fundraiser for the wrong cause at the wrong time.

I wanted to be able to vote "thumbs down" on the caller, to affect their reputation, to reflect my frustration at their interrupting my breakfast (yes, breakfast).

Like other social networks, Skypenet users can benefit from an online reputation system. In the before, during and after Skype moments, you want to avail yourself of a caller's reputation.

• As part of a Skypenet enhanced caller ID, you want to screen potential callers. Screen using a bozo filter and white lists; for authentication (this is the real Michael Jordan calling); and for contextual screening (this call is for business vs. social vs. activism vs...).
• During a conversation you want to assess trustworthyness by context, for example I might trust you to sell me a collectible BB gun (an eBay rating) but not to watch my kids.
• As part of hanging up, I might want to give feedback to the caller, the caller's employer, the caller's professional network, et al; voting as closure.

Like on eBay, your reputation becomes an asset worthy of defending, so socially normed behavior follows.

As we become concerned about SPIT and telemarketing, reputation systems may play an important part and be a clear business model.

Questions:

1. Whose existing reputation systems do you trust?
2. What new ones would you like to see?
3. Which social norms for communication cross cultural borders?
4. And which don't?
5. Does Skype fail to meet or support cultural norms for telephony? How?

Serial killer on the loose? The story on Skype reads like a Stephen King thriller. Today, the plot thickened with a Tom Online and Skype story in ETNet News. This story’s operative word: “content”.

“Content” + “Skype” in any story should send chills up the spines of exec’s at AOL’s TimeWarner or in any other firm in the media and advertising game. Terrifying.

June was also kicked off with a different "Tom". “Tom’s Networking” tells the story: Two approaches to VoIP – Skype vs. Vonage.

Smoke.

Skype is not a VoIP play.

Tom’s vision is myopic. Tom’s article focuses on the Skype Application; not on the big picture of the Skype Application currently distributed on 40 million desktops and mobile devices. A picture expanding at such a fast pace (over 150,000 per day) to create an image of a Skype morphed into a huge SETI@Home-like global network. Likely a 100 million Skype nodes by the end of 2005. Easily 200 million at the close of 2006.

Skype is a global network. An interactive network, as those who have used the instant Chat Messaging and File Transfer functions. A multi-media network too, as anyone knows who test drove the newly released Video4Skype plug-in. All of this backed by an integrated payment system.

Skype is a global, interactive, multi-media network. Almost zero operating cost. Almost zero cost to acquire a customer. Imagine the disruptive power! The main character in this thriller, famous for understatement, added another to the list in the ETNet News article, “We're in an experimental phase," Skype chief executive Niklas Zennstron said.”

Every thriller has blood and bodies. The telco’s were just the first. The broad disruptive nature of Skype makes it a serial killer. This might explain why CNN founder, Ted Turner started his chain of Ted’s Montana Grill restaurants. It might be the only business safe from Skype. Grin.

Skype said it will be re-launching their Software Developer Program, SDP, this month. They have 2 days to go! Please hurry!

Since I was the first member of the SDP eight months ago I can say this is a much-needed upgrade. Skype continues to innovate. But the real long-term innovation engine will be driven by an ecosystem of global software and device developers. Small, like Khaoslabs in Toronto, Canada, with the two genius Kevin’s (Kevin 1 and Kevin 2) who we work with, and large, like Motorola.

This week also marks the beginning of COMPUTEX Taipei, according to them, the second largest IT show. COMPUTEX will show us some exciting new Skype-enabled devices. I will be reviewing one for you next week. And we can expect yet anther third party video program to be ready for download this week as well.

Soon Skype will announce a much needed certification program which will help users make purchasing decisions a little easier. This program will help build trust between the developer and user community. Trust is a big deal.

Summer is approaching. Tonight it was hot enough on my deck to barbeque without turning on the propane. The Skype API world is now heating up too.

Since the release of the Skype API last September we have seen many early innovations. My own Skype Presence Server, voice mail solutions like SAM and Pamela. We have the bluedude (Hans Blaauw) in the Netherlands cranking out many tools. And Markus in Germany with his Skype presence broadcasters. Markusin the UK with his SMS solution. Skype Bots from the 2 Kevin’s and bluedude.

These are the earliest of days. The big days are coming. There are some really sweet things coming from developers to make Skype really rock.

AND now we have Lenn Pryor at Skype to help us drive it forward. Lucky us.

Here is an example of the kind of innovation I am talking about. Web-2-Skype’n Back. Kevin L(2) in Khaoslabs gave me a demo of his prototype today.

So here Kev’s prototype. Next week we will publish it as an “Open Source” project so everyone can get involved. Probably along with his Presence server.

Like the name says, it allows anyone to an initiate a chat message to a Skype Client from a web browser. AND for the Skype Client to respond to that message. A real plus if you want visitors to your web site to contact you. Engage in a chat. BETTER too, because if they give you there mobile or landline number you can call them on SkypeOut. Why type?

Here is the interface for me on my web browser along with a system diagram:

Here is the interface for Kevin L:

Awesome.

I will follow-up this post up with more about the Skype Developer DNA, Business Models for Developers and more third-party product products that enhance the Skype experience.

This is another update on SkypeVM, voice messaging in my language and voice mail in theirs. In my initial post I figured that VM could be one of Skype most profitable early money raisers. Currently it's not performing to my adoption expectations and that traces to their execution. Let me illustrate with a story.

I spent time reconnecting today with a colleague who has a friend who doesn't like interruptions. It's the type of job they do. They don't like chat messages that popup they don't like incessant ringing of their cellphone which they just turn off. For my colleague it puts her off ringing them.

How'd this all come up and and does it predict Skype strategy? Well I was sharing an aspect of Pamela-Systems' soon-to-be-released Pro version. I was experimenting with personal answer messages and sharing that I could customize one for each one of my friends. Now she jumped at it for this guy. She said.. you mean I can leave and update messages for him when he calls.. so even if I am not here he gets them. The answer is yes!

Then I introduced her to Skype voice messaging. Pointing out that you need not interrupt someone to send them the voice message of up to 10 minutes! Something I blogged lots about when VM was in beta, constantly saying it's not voice mail it's voice messaging. She was excited. By contrast to chat, or a ringer, it's the least intrusive and most personal of all the messaging formats. Of course she wanted to be able to send a group / mass VM at the same time. I said I'm sure that will come. It's inevitable.

And that friends is the story of where and why the value is really in voice messaging and not in voice mail. Voice messaging is potentially really viral. It also allows new revenue streams for Skype to be created. I've long thought that there is an opportunity for a "commercial" channel and a "private" channel. It's even possible to set the system up so one receives 10 commercial messages a day. Depending on whether they are answered or listened to depends on whether Skype and the Skyper get paid. (Can't wait for the API hooks so I can play them at three in the morning and randomly tick off! ;-)) Profiles, all sort of things become available.

Where this leads is easy. Skype's charging for voice mail when they should be charging for voice messaging. It's a priviledge to leave a voice message, it provides a degree of care and sharing that's not available in a chat and not worthy or timely for a call. What's more it can even be controlled. E.G., accounts closed where inappropriate VM's are left. Accounts identified and charged where commercial opportunities are desired.

I think Skype has proven to themselves that their VM approach is very efficient. The only thing they have to stop is you can't send a VM to someone that hasn't logged on more than say 4 times in the last month. That limits their "risk" and enables them to give everyone receive-access to voice messaging. That folks is a viral solution. You start getting VM you will want to send VM. It's called reciprocity.

To reciprocate you will have to buy yourself a VM account. That is hugely profitable. My bet is this will happen in a few stages. VM account holders will continue to send VM. However now we will send to anyone. (All those messages... been thinking about you.. what are you up to... that ringing or texting may be too intrusive for. The reaquantances on your buddylist). Stage two will be lowering the price for VM sending from the current $15 which is too high. This could wait awhile. Still it's likely. Alternatively they launch a commercial channel where you can have a "cheaper" VM. There's lots of possiblities here.

Finally this becomes even more attractive when you are calling a cellphone. Don't you just wonder where they are. In a car? Safe? Send them a VM. Don't frighten them with a ring. Your presence indicator reading for them says on mobile. Actually I think there will be status that is "on mobile" and "mobileme" which says calls are good.

Case made. Voice mail is not viral enough. Voice messaging changes the game but needs early adopters to infect others. Currently you limit my infection rate. That's just stupid. Similarly when looking at Yahoo's new beta the other day, you can only leave a voice mail on a failed call. That's just old thinking. There's money in VM I know it. However as Skype has not announced adoption rates and SkypeIn which bundles it is limited my bet is it is hard to get people in the current format to sign up.

See also these posts on VM.

• Skype VM Update
  
• Skype Voice Messaging Fast Forward
  
• Skype Voice Messaging

Could I be missing something when others query Niklas's cash flow claim? Is it too simple to look to the invoice numbers we quoted and looked at the other day. The chart is here.

Although subscribers only pay a few euros, these revenues would help to make the 2-year-old start-up cash-flow positive this year, he said.

"That's the case," he said, when asked if his company would be cash flow positive in 2005. The company has not yet given any indication about its profitability. Politics News Article | Reuters.com

My lastest order number on May 24th was 6523135 for an additional SkypeIn line. The day before my order number was 6515443 for a Euro 25 SkypeOut credit. Not 24 hours apart.

I had previously purchased a SkypeOut credit for 10 euros exactly one month earlier on April 23. That's 931508 orders in a month. Or some 30000+ orders per day.

So in maths, for cash flow that is E300000 per day in cash @ 10 euros per transaction. For the latest month it's likely that the total was in the region of E9+ million. Now that number excludes promotional gifts (bet that is not many on the orders) and assumes everyone bought a 10 euro voucher. It fails to add VAT that applies to all European orders. It's been a long time since I was an accountant in Europe, the Vat was paid the month after it was collected. Thus they have created a nice tidy little float there.

Which brings us to cash flow. Other than obvious staff (120 odd) and travel the biggest outgoing by far is paying for these minutes. Then there has to be a fair amount left over. So where is the rest of the money going. Lots on professional services, including marketing, affiliation programs, alliances, creating private labelling deals, paying the lawyers, for defending themselves, including regulations, alliances etc.

I don't know how many minutes Skype had to buy last month. We do know the approximate number of SkypeOut users. If someone wants to pay me to be more scientific I will. SkypeOut numbers have been announced crudely at various times over the last few months. Let's say it is 200k new SkypeOut users in the last month.

That means based on orders at 10 euro that they represent 20% of the purchases last month. We don't know how many minutes they will use. For the rest it means that we had approx 700K reorders. That means that up to 50% of the reported 1.4 millon on SkypeOut may be renewing monthly. It will be less because of heavy users, SkypeIn transactions and users opting for bigger prepaid card amounts etc.

700 k users pay 10 euros for a prepaid card in the month, thus revenue is 7 million euros plus taxes. The longer the repurchase cycle the more they have in cash flow.

I'm inclined to believe they are already cash flow positive and have been for quite a while. As for profit, that's not relevant right now. Cash goes into more developers and services which accelerate product development and prepares and protect Skype for a future in which PSTN minutes won't provide the cash or the opportunity to build a new company.

So is it smart to say cash flow positive this year? I'm betting they already are.

Now there are some choices to be made. How much to spend on the US market development, where Skype is a clear laggard? How to accelerate growth in markets outside the US where the customer acquisition costs are low? It's still a balancing act. What really matters is growing the user base.

Niklas Zennstrom's presentation from VON Europe. What's changed and what's been updated since VON Canada?

Insert positioning Skype as providing free global roaming particularly with SkypeIn. Added in details on the affiliate program and providing a similar although stronger point of view on regulation. Plus still thinking ecosystem.

• Encouraging evangelizers
• Extensive API which is free to use
• Accessories which are Skype Enabled are very attractive to consumers
• Existing users recommend Skype to friends (as long as we are honest and respect our users)

Download file

In The Jeff Pulver Shift Happens presentation at VON Europe 2005 he opens with "Net Freedoms" and "Consumer Empowerment" and then moves to Skype. These are some of the reasons Skype Journal was started and why we are blogging about "freedom" and "regulation", concerned about port blocking etc. From almost the first day I wrote about Skype I've seen it as facilitating a new market, and new forms of exchange. The learning from Jeff's presentation slides for me reading between the lines is VON "voice on the net" as defined today won't cut the cloth of the future anymore. Yes we are going to see "audio" / "voice" advances, however the focus that emerges is a completely new experience, that will be led by presence, identity, and relationships. VON conceptually is being superceded while the market is being transformed.

Dial 911 in Skype. This is what you get.

How many voip services can give you this feedback?

Personally, I think this is a mature response. This is Skype starting to think like a player engaged in a contest for political power with gargantuan telcos and cable companies. And a software company listening closely to its users. And its lawyers. I hear stories that telcos routinely spend eight times their R&D budget on "government affairs," a barrier to entry for new entrants. Since half of Skype's staff are involved in product development, that's not the case here. Yet. Read on to see the ex parte letter Goldberg filed on behalf of Skype.

LAW OFFICES
GOLDBERG, GODLES, WIENER & WRIGHT
1229 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
HENRY GOLDBERG
JOSEPH A. GODLES
JONATHAN L. WIENER
BRITA D. STRANDBERG
LAURA A. STEFANI
HENRIETTA WRIGHT
THOMAS G. GHERARDI, P.C.
COUNSEL

(202) 429-4900
TELECOPIER: (202) 429-4912
general@g2w2.com

May 10, 2004

Electronic Submission

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Re: WC Docket 04-36 Ex Parte

Dear Ms. Dortch:

On May 9, 2005, Skype Communications, S.A. (“Skype”), represented by Director of Operations Michael Jackson, undersigned counsel, and Brita D. Strandberg of this firm, met with Chairman Martin’s Chief of Staff Daniel Gonzalez and Michelle Carey, Legal Advisor to Chairman Martin, and separately with Commissioner Copps and Jessica Rosenworcel, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Copps, to discuss the application of 911/e911 requirements to IP-enabled services.

Specifically, Skype explained its position that those providing IP-based replacements for fixed-line wireline telephone service should provide equivalent access to 911/e911 emergency response services as available to consumers using the telephone services for which they are seeking a replacement. In this way, consumers, who expect to have access to emergency response when they replace their fixed-line telephone service, will not be exposed to potentially dangerous situations if their reasonable expectations are not met.

Skype emphasized that the Commission should define IP-based replacements for fixed-line wireline telephone service as services that:

• Assign users NANPA/E.164 phone numbers;
• Offer as a package real-time, two-way service that is able to receive voice communications from the PSTN and terminate voice communications on the PSTN;
• Provide, or enable use of, traditional CPE or CPE that, like traditional CPE, is always on and has dial tone.

Use of this definition will ensure that consumers buying phone service that is marketed as, and intended to be used as, a replacement for fixed-line wireline telephone service will be able to reach emergency services.

Naturally, Skype itself will abide by this proposal and will offer access to emergency response whenever it offers services meeting these criteria. Indeed, Skype is planning to integrate its IP offerings with its own WiFi handsets and will support the provision of reliable user location information to emergency services when consumers buy those handsets.

In the interim, Skype is concerned that overbroad application of 911/e911 requirements will impede rather than facilitate the provision of emergency services. Skype does not have access to reliable real-time location information for its users – Skype may determine a user’s IP address, but IP addresses (in addition to being vulnerable to spoofing) offer only the most general sense of a user’s location. Of course, Skype could request location information from users, but any self-reported information is likely to be unreliable. Skype users typically use Skype from laptops or from several computers, logging into their Skype accounts from home, work, hotel rooms, airports, Internet cafes, and anywhere else they have access to a computer and a broadband connection. Consequently, any user-reported location information, even if initially correct, will accurately describe a user’s location only some of the time, and could be off by entire continents.

Because it does not have and cannot obtain reliable location information from its users, Skype currently is unable to deliver emergency calls to the proper PSAP. It is likewise unable to transmit location and callback information. A Skype call to emergency services would run a serious risk of being routed to the wrong PSAP and would contain unreliable information once connected. Adding capability for such calls to Skype would reduce user security by creating a false impression that Skype can and should be used to reach emergency services and would burden PSAPs with improperly routed calls and unreliable information. Skype has addressed this limitation by warning users that Skype should not be used as a telephone replacement service and cannot be used for emergency dialing

For the reasons discussed above, Skype urges the Commission to limit the immediate application of 911 and e911 requirements to IP-based replacements for fixed-line wireline telephone service as defined herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry Goldberg
 Attorney for Skype Communications, S.A.

cc: Commissioner Copps
Michelle Carey
Daniel Gonzalez

Jessica Rosenworcel

One's just lonely, two's company, three's a crowd. Some bloggers are dropping other IM products for Skype. Is this a stampede? Myself? I turned on my Trillian a couple of times in the last few weeks. Only to get to someone who I haven't yet converted. My buddy list keeps growing. While I want to organize it renaming buddies kills the extra details (timezones, locations etc.) that my buddies keep updating.

My colleagues Jeremy and Tris are ditching their old instant messaging (IM) clients like MSN and so am I. I'm sick of having multiple instant messaging IM clients, especially now that I have one that works so damn well. WillPate May 15

I’ve decided to stop using MSN Messenger, as well as every other IM client out there. I now use Skype exclusively Jeremy Wright April 18

I was thinking, "yeah I prefer Skype too..." [end thought]. This morning I realized that just about all the folks I IM with on a regular basis are on Skype. So, why, pray tell, am I running a multi-protocal app to be available on MSN, Y!, and AIM? Tris Hussey April 20

I use Skype everyday, and quite a lot during the day, but rarely for voice services. Although the option is great, as is the multi-person capability, I use it for my IM. Group chats, simple interface, easy to manage voice to chat switches. Just simple. Arieanna Foley May 7

A fascinating comment received today from Telmex in response to our post asking if Telmex is "blocking" Skype and Vonage users. The comment which appears genunine provides both an insight into the challenges growth is putting on infrastructure "we cannot guarantee continuous functioning" and plans for future strategy "we will offer Internet services with a different commitment "QOS" (quality of service), with a SLA mechanism (service level agreements)." The response adds:

In order to support services with "Real time" quality, we need to modify the infrastructure to follow up with these Internet characteristics from beginning to end.

We will acquire the capacity to control the distribution of Internet bandwidth for each user with different types of traffic. Therefore, we need to divide total traffic in different categories and assign a minimum percentage of total bandwidth to each one, under high usage and congestion conditions.

These different kinds of traffic can represent different kinds of users and protocols.

In a Net with these characteristics, the cost for the use of this particular service will be higher than the traditional best-effort transfer. Comment by Concepsion Rivera

The comment lays the blame with consumers using P2P systems, and as I read it suggests that consumers shouldn't want an always on connected world. My reading of this response suggests that Telmex has adopted a "frustrate and fight" strategy. What's outlined is not a win-win strategy for consumers or Telmex. I'd advocate that if the F&F strategy aims to stop the likes of Vonage or Skype, the results will be far worse. From my perspective this comment confirms that Telmex doesn't have a Skype strategy. So it will be real interesting if Vonage and Skype call quality complaints continue or get worse. It will be even more telling when in the board meeting they have to share their results. I hope shareholders ask " What are you doing to provide users with an always on connected world?".

All equipment connected to these applications establish constant communication and are victims of the process of other equipments searching also for files and because of this, the equipment is permanently emitting information.

Wow you mean I should turn off my computer? Dear user please turn your computer off. Don't use it to share presence. Every transaction you make should be chargeable. In my simple consumer view this comment is completely backwards. The Telmex response says introduce "CONTROL MECHANISMS", --- eventually get control. Rachet down the future. This is far away from what we - users should want. I read excuses, fear, and continued greed between the lines. If this is really Telemex's position? Is your telecom provider the same? What are your regulators and governments going to do about it? Whether this is

So please tell me... Should I read this as Telmex will fight Skype and other VoIP providers by letting the "general service" deteriorate, and then offering services at higher rates that work? Will they frustrate VoIP interconnects? Is / Are Telecoms about to make it an even more dirty game?

Links:
ZDNet on VoIP finds foreign friends and adversaries

Vonage Forum
The Herald: Users decry deline in service

The New York Times Op-Ed Columnist THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, and author of "The World Is Flat, A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," (a very good read, by the way) tells a great story in his column today "Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio? as he continues his rant on America's failure to meet foreign competition.

"I helped teach a course at Harvard last semester on globalization, and one day a student told me this story: He was part of a student-run collaboration between students in the U.S. and China. The American and Chinese students had recently started working together by using Skype, ... But what was most interesting, the student told me, was that it was the Chinese students who introduced their U.S. counterparts to Skype. And, he noted, these Chinese students were not from major cities, like Beijing, but from smaller towns."

How many of you have similar Skype stories? How has Skype made your world more flat?

I am sure it is not only telcos who will feel the disruptive affects of change... of Skype.

That's my thought for the day from Long Island, New York where Stuart, Phil and I are meeting to discuss our Skype strategy. "What's your Skype Strategy?" Have you given it any thought lately?

Jeff Pulver writes a well balanced piece today on the 911 crisis. I'm wary of what's happening here. Part of that may be because I've never made a 911 call, and can't think of a single person I know that has either. However, taking that too far is like saying I've never had a heart attack or a stroke. Some things are required for the unexpected, and it may be even more important that they are provided on time to someone you know.

Still I believe regulators run the risk of making the mistake thinking that they know what users want. They are wrong. They base their experiences on the phone systems of the past and not on the future. Dealing with VoIP in the US today or any other country is not about addressing Vonage and asking how will they provide an effective 911 service. For those PoIP services aren't the ones defining the emerging user experience and what they will do with it. In fact rushing to reregulating the new with the old is plain stupid. In fact rather than regulating VoIP the solution really requires "opening" numbers to VoIP users while we transition to something completely new. By then the numbers won't matter anymore. This is how I get to that idea.

What's the point of 911 that only deals with Voice when text chat, a web cam, or a smart GPS location headset, a healthmonitor, or buddylist emergency response warning are all real possibilities. As Skype redefines voice on the net and telephony morphs into always on presence systems and ecologies why regulate to an outmoded model? The fact is you can't think about the future of 911 like services today without thinking about how Skype users are redefining how they use converged capabilities and we've not even begun.

Jeff in his review makes a great case for nomadic systems, and the possibilities of inbound only lines etc. This provides an example of why VoIP 911 (as envisaged) doesn't fly and how to keep Skype and other IM's and FWD out of this morass. I'm still interested in building the user case. I fear traditional incumbents arguing against progress to protect their turf which is archaic. Instead, why not force mobile operators to share their line or enable you me to access our account (number) with VoIP solutions. Many users would pay extra and it solves a problem. With always on access... I bet the number of "emergency" surprises would go down! With the current mobile and landline offerings we can't have that without an IP solution.

So let's pitch a world in which emergency response is improved by the synchonization of VoIP with PSTN and Mobiles. Let's make it a right as a user to have the option to pick up any landline number or any mobile number we have with our VoIP solutions! Am I missing something here? Wouldn't that provide a bridge, accelerate the always on world, reduce unexpected "emergency calls" and provide a platform for new solutions to emerge? Oh and sorry... it will speed change in the telecom industry.

Perhaps it's just too far fetched and off the wall? I know I know.. they (incumbents) will never buy it, even if there is a little common sense in there. I don't know one Skyper that wouldn't jump for joy at such a suggestion.

For instance, if the FCC's definition applies to two-way voice services using the North American Numbering Plan, would this include a PDA with both Skype-in and Skype-out utilizing a North American NPA-NXX? I presume this is not the FCC's intention, but definitions are a tricky game, particularly as technology evolves and Internet services are more and more capable of replicating traditional telecommunications experiences. Should it be against the law for a PDA user at a bar in America to use Skype-out if it does not have direct routing to a E911 PSAP? I certainly hope not The Jeff Pulver Blog

With injury, age, disease, or an accident of birth, our abilities shift from the norm. Reasonable people understand it is useful to have everyone participate in society, especially in public spaces. So we make curb cuts in sidewalks for wheelchair access. Traffic signals and elevators chirp or announce their status. We accomodate to include.

I propose Skype and the Skype developer community set a goal:

Skype accessibility for the visual and hearing impaired by Summer 2006.

Some of the challenges:

• Technical Compatibility. How well does Skype work with today's screen readers? What can we do to make it work naturally?
• Relay service. Human relay services that help the visually impaired to hear a chat (reading the chat aloud) and the hearing impaired to have voice calls transcribed in real time and video calls closed captioned in real time. Programmers: consider relay initiation.
• Captioning. When Skype introduces video calls and conferences, how will we caption video from those using sign languages?
• Controls. What features will help a blind person navigate her Skype address book, search for a Skype user, be notified of voice mail? How will this differ from computer platforms to mobile ones?
• Alerting and notification. Other tools, including many not connected to a computer, are used to notify the deaf and blind of incoming calls. How should Skype work with them?
• Other concerns. While the Skype UI is simple, it is overwhelming for some with other cognitive modes like types of attention deficit or mild autism, for others with motor disabilities, and yet for others with sensory concerns like color blindness.

There are technical and business justifications. These new features will lend themselves to other applications. The challenges will strengthen the Skype API. The accessibility will extend the market. And the programme responds to PSTN/mobile telco lobbying.

But that's not why we must do it.

We can leave no Skyper behind.

It is the right thing to do.

Can Skype users switch? Brough Turner thinks so. He makes the case that, unlike an operating system, users can easily download clients for other messaging networks.

There is a fundamental difference between operating systems and IP-communications. You only run one operating system on your computer. You can easy run multiple IP-Communications clients on the same computer at the same time.

Today I run three instant messenger clients at all times, because there are groups I participate in who happen to use different instant messenger networks. It doesn't matter. The services are all free. The user interfaces are very similar. The overhead to install an additional IM client is very small. The same will apply to Skype competitors, when they emerge.

For now, Skype is building a brand. Their product works better than anything else in the market, they're making good use of the viral marketing inherently available to any communications product, and their open APIs foster 3rd party developers who are extending their eco-system in myriad directions. I use Skype and I look forward to their success. But there is nothing to prevent me from running Skype and a new competitor's software at the same time on the same PC and the same Internet connection.

I'd never guarantee it, but Skype can achieve customer loyalty, providing they continue to deliver the basic services at competitive advantage.

Social Network Inertia. See Judith Meskill's list of social network systems. These systems blend buddy lists (helping you keep in touch with friends, family, and the rest of your contacts) with discovery of interesting strangers. Individuals populate the systems with their Outlook address books, and invite their friends to join. If you switch to another network, you must convince your friends to follow. But it's hard to switch, taking time and energy, and each person you persuade must also drag their friends into the new network. And you can only do this a few times to your friends before they stop following you. Each time you ask friends to switch, you burn your social capital. If it was easy, we'd all have swarmed one of the top five IM services, leaving the others silent. Same with friends-and-family phone services.

Ecological Dependence. Microsoft Windows isn't all that great, but it has a zillion independent software developers who've written a gazillion programs that run on it. This means you can find swine feed rotation software or a chiropractic practice management system or a flight time logger. Windows also has a large constellation of service providers. Businesses that provide training, technical support, updates, virus protection and the like. The ecology of software developers and service providers enriches users. Switching means not only leaving Windows but leaving its warm and vital ecology.

Skype is a platform for developers and service providers, just like Windows. Like Microsoft, Skype doesn't show all of its code, but it shows you, through its API (Application Programmer Interface) how to use its components. A growing Skype developer and partner community builds a stream of future capabilities and choices into the Skype ecology. The ecology guarantees that if Skype doesn't meet a need, someone else will.

As you use third parties in the Skype network to screen calls, find work, wake you up in the morning, or find a date, you invest yourself in this ecology.

An Identity Worth Fighting For. Skype users are making Skype a beloved icon. When was the last time someone said they love Verizon, bragging about it their friends? Skype is becoming a lovemark, like Bookcrossing, Apple computers, Moleskins, Coca Cola, Lego, and Google. A brand that makes people smile just thinking about it. That helps them stick through tough times and celebrate successes. An identity that bridges cultures, languages, and generations. Saatchi and Saatchi says a lovemark "inspires loyalty behond reason." Talk to people about how Skype changed their lives, became a part of how they work, put money in their pocket. Ask how Skype surprises and delights them.

Other factors strengthen lock-in, and fight it. But Skype earns Skyper loyalty every day.

While Skype founders are probably scrambling with what should be an overnight success, they are running some branding risks and have made some crucial target audience assumptions. Unfortunately, "beta" isn't an excuse. The consumers targeted with this product will ignore the "beta" label. I'm just going to put a few piece into play that suggests Skype must quickly become a marketing-centric organization.

Skype's consumer base is morphing by the hour. Each registration - will impact on the community that uses Skype. Living the Brand "Skype" requires more than the initial wow fun - it works. I will try and illustrate this. I'll be brutal. The founders of Kazaa, (an egocentric pitch if I ever heard one) bring you... That's a techno-centric pitch. Lets face it Kazaa created both the platform for this step and dangers particularly perceptions. Techies will take notice.. while my mother is not interested. Trading music - has a real economic incentive for young people. Kids do it. They can't afford CD's or would in fact rather put their money on other entertainment items. I think however the target for Skype is much broader. It's not 12 year old that are trying it out. Telephone calls have no cost for them. This big bold link to Kazaa is unnecessary. Get rid of it. There's a much bigger idea under it all and the founders must build real sympathy for it.

It begins with "living this brand" There's no marketer on the company list! There are already a number of branding problems. First we have (as too often with tech products) no consumer stories. The closest we get to smiling faces on the main screen are these two mug shots in the company section. Hey great they look like rock stars.... Well no. These photos in the company section are almost scary. They may want to change the world. However, that will require color and a smile. They must appear "pleasant" and "approachable". Some simply manufactured warmth would help. Change these photos quick!. They may work on Hot or Not; they aren't appropriate here.

It's true there is a lot of good word of mouth out there. I've been tracking it. People really seem to get it. So why start kicking at the founders? Simply because the best emerging online community I know for having a "personal" face is Adrian Scott's Ryze. From day one he cared about his friends. This is in stark contrast to the mistakes being made at Friendster. For Skype to be really successful it must be more than technology or "disrupting" the old phone system. It's about welcoming in tomorrow. We are in the age of P2P telephony. How people share in these riches will define the potency of the solution.

So what scares me about this initial beta techno incarnation is I (the consumer/customer) have no way of knowing if these guys care about anything more than the tech or the likely money they are going to make in the future. At the moment it could go either way. I'm talking about how names are filled in! I'm ranting about instructions on filling profiles. Profiles are central to this emerging community. I'm suggesting that the founders make it clear. I have have checked. THE FOUNDERS (full name) ARE UNLISTED! I can't call them. What sort of communications society are they suggesting we support? Are they scared to take calls? For this to really work... everyone has to want to be always on... like the phone system.

Now to be more fair... They won't be able to take millions of calls. Still an old computer with an away message would work. Or even have a PA answer some! Still there are many CEO's that can still list their home number. It's called the phone book. Here we have two founders that may well be able to create a P2P directory of everybody on earth. With some smarter technology it will enable progressive levels of disclosure. The path is fairly clear. So this... PERSONAL DISCLOSURE thing is important. They are not making it easy enough to decide.... what's my name and how do I share details about myself. The assumption is people know how to fill in the form. Actually they don't. Every community has it's approach. Just look at Ryze vs.. Tribe. ort Yahooprofile pages. Unfortunately the only Skype example on the home page lists Skype_lover and Skype_rocks as well as Catherine etc.. It's not funny and may suggest the wrong connotations. Just simply a risk a smart marketer wouldn't take in packaging a product for mass popular consumption. Clean it up quick! Share more thinking about the "design" of the profile. From my perspective some of it seems a little premature. My phone numbers??? Talk to me personally. Tell me how to be "smart", with-it and techno savvy.

This also reflects an issue of understanding who the target audience is. It's not those that change their IM name everyday on AIM. It is not your average Kazaa user. For a phone system to work we need some naming consistency. This is going to be a real interesting emergent phenomena. It is no wonder the Eula says... we can't handle emergency calls. By the way "Operator" is taken and is not listed. In some fun and jest I called up the top Brands
and started trying to register them as my number. Coca-Cola, Microsoft, down to number 7 Disney... which registered for me. So looks like we are going to have a pretty interesting phone book. Should I auction "Disney" on eBay? Ebay users will adopt this too! This won't be so problematic if we realized and accepted that 1-800 calls are made all the time. If you are a company... why not let your operators use this system. (ah a new backend business for someone) . However I was thinking target audience. Who's likely to move first? Who will be the initial users?

Bloggers are a pretty good bet. I liked John Robb's comment suggestion today. I just don't know how to do it. Internationally connected by words... often too expensive to talk. Ryze is another community where "phone costs" limit exchanges. So it is not only communicate P2P Telephony... which seems like maybe just a new thing... go global with the thought. International calls are free! It's more where this is placed on the home page and the story around it. In America long distance state to state is increasingly just a fixed fee of $15 or thereabouts every month. It's not a motivator. International calls still add up. Then there is the college student on a mobile. Wants to protect some minutes. Skype will be all though the college dorms. The College students will get their parents on it. Something they could never do with Kazaa (with rare exceptions). "Hey Mom! Here's a telephone for your PC!" The aged can then push youth back to some sense of talking....

Now these older users are more concerned. P2P is bad. It says so in the news and with the RIAA. (Get the Kazaa references off the home page!). The second part of the culture equation is the culture of abundance and how all of us collectively can create a better communication system. Setting the stage for this is the personal guarantee from the founders that they've designed the system so I don't have to fear leaving it on all the time. It won't slow down my computer and gee... you know Seti at home we will work it so we only use latent capacity. Hey Seti is good right! They could do even more if they started commiting to a long-term "world communications" behavior charter.

Which brings me to the color choice. Purple --- a mixture of red and blue. Strongly associated with relationships and identity. Purple is the colour of magic and deep emotions. This seems like an interesting color direction to go down. So let's use it to talk the magical relationships. The elimination of cost barriers to good conversation. It's first iteration... fairly naked by comparison to other IM clients. Now the downside...Too much purple is probably immature or too erotic. It's a great color for school girls - it's not in this rendition that the color for the worlds next phone company. And that is where the branding can get really interesting. It's P2P telephony... and Skype is really after magic seamless connections, and for that it's perfect. At least I can see ways to grow it.

Then there is the name. How is it pronounced? It may not be clear to everyone. Let us know... in the story on the site where it came from, what it should inspire.

Then tell me the story of why it will overturn IM. Why ringing is more natural? Why this solution is both less intrusive and more efficient! Jeez I'm not going to write that for you too. What you need is a marketer who realizes that this is the next eBay. You need someone focussing on the message, holding the business true to a set of core values that rest round people, relationships and innovative communications. It was easy for people to go from Napster to Kazaa. It will be easy to get people to go from IM to Skype. Thankfully IM is never mentioned on the home page. At the core... Skype is not beholden to the big company, but the emerging community.

Now my final little freebee!. The receiver on the phone the hang-up/pickup should always on top. As Skype is not IM the little headset icons shold be at the top. Plus the name... area to put one in and dial.. just under that. The file etc. and tabs all at the bottom! Afterall it is about turning the world upside down. Why should I scan to the bottom of an IM looking box to see that it's phone centric! Come on! Plus... on the useability stakes.. it is either minimised or in the bottom right of the screen.

I could go on... I must stop.

Are there more business models around P2P? Seems a good time to highlight this emerging research business. BigChampagne is bubbling in the media world. Like Zoomerang lowered the cost of market reserach BigChampagne is the online ethnographer. They simply observe - watching for behavior changes.

In fact, it tracks every download and sells the data to the music industry. How one company is turning file-sharing networks into the world's biggest focus group. By Jeff Howe from Wired magazine. [Wired]

This month, I chatted with Kai Rissdal about the RIAA and BigChampagne, the company that gleans customer intelligence from filesharing networks. (The interview is in RealAudio.) [Z+Blog!]

This is Forrester's view in August.. I'd ask youself how could they be wrong. Despite the RIAA threats... Big Champagne says file-sharing is up this week from August. Makes sense to me... back to school. Will music CD's exist in 2008?

Hard media is in jeopardy: By 2008, revenues from CDs will be off 19%, while DVDs and tapes will drop 8%. Piracy and its cure -- streaming and paid downloads -- will drive people to connect to entertainment, not own it.

If you are like me scanning for early indicators --- looking upstream from time to time to see what's coming then Skype and Big Champagne are two "signals" that the world may be moving in this direction. When I mentioned Skype to George Por today he kindly referred me to an article by Michel Bauwens, "Peer to Peer - from technology to politics to a new civilization". It was the first time I'd heard the meme "P2P Civilization". I rather liked it. There is further thinking in the "Integrative Style" in this Text Index.