How do you open up your software's user experience to outside parties?

It's distressing to hand your hard fought, crisply crafted, sophisticated design to imperfect strangers.

But you must.

It's key to learning new things. To multiplying the value you create by the curious, concerned, and committed. To meeting more customer needs. To lock-in.

So what's the best way to do it?

Prior art includes plug-in standards, high level human-computer interaction specifications and browser based methods.

With plug-ins, you parameterize everything within a few fixed guidelines. Think about Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, all looking more-or-less the same, but packaging different calculations in one consistent set of controls.

Sometimes a plug-in definition restricts too much. Kai's Power Tools went outside the Photoshop client to create user surfaces that better served user goals than anything possible within the plug-in UI spec.

"An interface is about hiding complexity from the user, It's about guiding a process, without cognitive understanding of what goes on beneath. Interface design is the art of enveloping the observer in an enticing, "try this" exploration with ever-new elements and designs as the tools to triumph in new territories." - Kai Krause

Ever wonder why it's easy to learn a new Macintosh program? Apple's famous UI specs for the early Macintosh OS guided the design of Mac apps.

Enter the AJAX era [wikipedia], a universe of loosely coupled, thoroughly decentralized, OS-independent applications. Where 14-year-olds can create toolbars for Firefox that produce new navigation of Flickr's photo site. Where users record and share Greasemonkey scripts that rewrite web pages so phone numbers become clickable SkypeOuts. Where Vonage users write and share desktop widgets to show Vonage status, minutes used, and performance. Where a weekend hack shows a Google map of a Craig's List of apartments renting near you.

Ten years' ago users were putting up words and pictures on the web.

Five years' ago users were storing them in databases.

Now we're creating applications, in a wave of design riding atop existing data, databases, and services.

The elements are straightforward, even if creating an effective platform remains an art.

So here's my first cut wishlist to open Skype's UI.

1. Open up your embedded browser to users
2. Let us open arbitrary web pages
3. Open up your tabbing and menuing navigation, subject to to
4. Expose its document model
5. Add JavaScript
6. Add Java
7. Support the web2.0 protocols: RSS, Atom, XML-RPC, SOAP, etc.
8. Support Flash
9. Open up the messaging/alerting system
10. Open up the help/documentation system
11. Build a toolbar system, so I can configure feature sets
12. Docking of external UI components/widgets with or within the main application
13. Skin the UI, so I can distribute my enterprise's branded skin or my Natasha Lyonne fan club skin.

Let

• engineers add functionality,
• designers adapt function to specific purposes,
• partners to channel their content, and
• users to make their copy of Skype their own.

Create a safe and flexible place, and they'll experiment and play.

Whilst perusing my daily feeds, I see Kim Cameron bring up the following idea:

When I was in Britain earlier this summer, I met Toby Stevens. How should I describe him? Can we invent the category of privacy entrepreneur?

Was trying out the Skype 1.4 beta today, with auto-forwarding. You know, Skype is now in a position to re-intermediate the mobile and other carriers (for a fee!). If your cellular carrier doesn't "get it" and see that there's a demand for innovation in voice features (like enhanced privacy), you just hand out your Skype number instead and have it intelligently forwarded.

Only want to be called on your mobile at certain times of day, or when you're not in a meeting, or when you're at your keyboard with a certain presence status? Then just set up your forwarding accordingly.

The current forwarding mechanism is just a binary on/off, but it doesn't take a genius to see how extensions could play into this.

So Skype Inc. is indeed a form of privacy entrepreneurialism. Roll up! Roll up! Come here to buy your missing telecom privacy features!

Now all Skype has to do is find a way to remunerate developers whose extensions lead to more billable minutes and up-sell to premium features. Unless of course they like pissing in their own pond and killing the little developer fishes...

Now here's a really evil thought. Want to upset the incumbent telecom players with some progressive regulation? Then force a separation of connectivity and service markets upon them. Allow users to port their number to a service provider like Skype, but still allow termination to your mobile device. Finally make numbers logical addresses associated with service, not physical addresses associated with routing and connectivity. Add a dash of wholesale pricing rules, stir in some termination rate sauce, and serve with gusto. Et voila! A competitive market in advanced telephony service emerges, unconstrained by the low level of competition in connectivity.

And we didn't even need to buy a single IMS box...

Unfortunately, the implementation will be really messy with all sorts of craziness because even things like a 3G data card needs to be assigned a telephone number to be accepted by the provisioning system. Doh! But where there's a political will, there's a technical way.

I received some feedback when I floated my previous post on Katrina earlier today. So being naive I sent the following response which outlines what appears possible to me.

Thank you for the FCC perspective. However if I understand correctly you can’t transfer it to a VoIP provider like Vonage or Skype. Thus the regulations aren't going to help much at all. This group is still tied into the tyranny of the fixed line. People need their numbers where access may be difficult and messages can be left.

I was approaching it from the following point of view…

• Minimal infrastructure. Minimal set up and training.
• Implementation in hours rather than days or months
• Put in the Astrodome an Internet café along with headsets.
• Provide broadband and WiFi
• Enable Skype on those PC’s / phone handsets. Word would spread rapidly.
• Enable account holders to open a Skype account and assign their home number to it (SkypeIn)
• They would be enabled with free voice mail at the same time.
• Using the latest version they could call forward if required to a mobile number (cost two cents per minute) or to another Skype account – buddy for free, thus establishing a more online point of contact.
• It costs nothing to open accounts.
• Presence would enable them to create support groups and networks quickly amongst neighbors.
• Bell South could probably arrange to keep ownership of the numbers if they wish, e.g. loan them to a service.
• There is no need for a switchboard; it does require some bandwidth….

Rather than ponder the outcome, it should be done for humanitarian reasons. The old system doesn't have an emergency response that is acceptable any more.

Feedback I received on my previous post:

1) Let displaced account holders log in and claim their accounts (phone numbers) via the Internet. What's happening at the Astrodome?

I don't know of that happening. However, the FCC did actually, amazingly, do something right this time. They issued an emergency waiver of the number portability regulations. It is now allowable to port a number to a different geographic rate center. Under the actual rules, you can port your number to a different carrier, but its rate center assignment is fixed (modulo FX lines, which are controversial). Under the waiver, NO and other impact-area numbers can ring elsewhere. This will mostly be used by businesses, I suspect, but perhaps some people can get this too, once they settle into new digs.

It is somewhat harder, but not impossible, to point multiple phone numbers at a single phone. This would require, I think, two steps, one to port the number to an operative switch, and a second to Remote Call Forward it to a target number. A given phone can't, alas, have very many numbers on it (a few, actually), and in a place like the Astrodome, it might make sense to have a sort of switchboard set up to answer messages for lots of ported numbers.

Or will they:
1) just keep the bills running
2) not use their imaginations.

I don't know if BellSouth will do so, but the FCC's authorization of porting means that, at least in theory, other carriers can step into the breach.

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.

The rumor of Google Talk appears to be rattling the cage at Skype and will shake some egos. This post reflects on Skype's latest PR release which opens the gates on new initiatives. Are they in response to Google Talk? I wrote this prior to testing out Google Talk this evening. I'll let you be the judge.

Party time at Skype over the next week.

...is preparing to mark its second anniversary next week by opening up its platform to anyone who wants to integrate Skype's presence and instant messaging services into their website or application. By opening up Skypes platform to the web, it will now be simple for anyone to connect to Skypes fast growing member base,.... Skype Anniversary Press Release

Underlying the fluff we find two new initiatives that indicate Skype is testing a bolder (or maybe reckless if the news is too premature) strategic direction. Certainly these components support Lenn Pryor's desire to build a broader ecosystem around Skype.

SkypeWeb: Creating a web of availability.

Skype will launch a web presence server solution under the name SkypeWeb. This will be supported in a new client release (we don't know when) which will broadcast your presence data via preferences in the client. Apparently a new bit of code in the P2P network will ping status updates every five second to a presence server. Presence information will be availabie in the form of an ATOM feed which will enable presence updates and also enable contact lists. All list detail is said to be controlled by the user. Thus the Atom feed will push presence data direct from the Skype client enabling contact lists for a circle of friends. The general idea space is good. Details? Client? We don't know yet.

SkypeNet: Stripped down client extends Developer opportunities:

Skype will open up presence and IM functionality to the whole world under the name SkypeNet. It's unknown whether this will include file sharing. SkypeNet is made up of SkypeLite clients --- a headless Skype client, without user interface, that can be integrated into any application. This should let you build Skype servers and web services. It should help Skype become enabled in programs like Trillian, make Skype more interesting for online game publishers, and create opportunities for business applications that need to scale. This is a huge gap in their architecture and, depending on execution, SkypeNet may fill it.

Some of the PR announcement is fluff. Skype has done a tremendous job of building and growing a software platform. Still, the combination of big deal buyers (Murdoch billions) and bragging on registered names (51 million) doesn't sit well with me. It hides the plain truths. Skype at two is still an upstart minnow. It's achieved much. Year One saw the launch of P2P telephony that just worked and free conference caling. Together these reinvented telephony. In Year Two we have SkypeOut, SkypeIn and the SkypeAPI and Skypers who want to do more with Skype. Today Skype has a global following in the 10's of millions talking for billions of minutes.

The industry clearly needs some metrics. However apples and oranges examples isn't the way to do it.

Skype's minutes served are currently flat. Active users are stalled. Releases with substantial features - voice recording, - call forwarding, work groups, contact lists, all seem to be coming along very slowly.

What is slow? From a developer's perspective progress may be very fast. However, from a Skype user point of view, many are now using Skype as a super telephone replacement, often for mobiles, so we expect all sorts of complex new features to be available. They are standard features on other systems. Now Skype adds these two initiatives. Expectations for Skype's next major client release are growing. We want it all and yet, two years after Skype first launched, I still can't do the things with it I dreamed I would like to be able to do.

So, Skype, please don't put your credibiltiy on the line with stretch announcements. The meme is still spreading because Skype is inherently good when I can talk to one or more for free. However, nothing kills a meme faster than the smell of desparation or an empty store. Telling me about presence servers and stripped clients is not the same as delivering them to me. The developer community has provided many gifts. I just hope when you blow out the two candles this week our wishes come true.

Michael Robertson was caught talking to Chris Pirillo on the Gizmo Poject today. They are using Gizmo to record the session. He openly discusses what's good about Gizmo (e.g. the recording features) and provides some useful background on why he started with hardware at SIPPhone and effectively copied Skype. I've paraphrased the podcast. Time approx 30 minutes. Download or read the summary.

When I started Sipphone we focused on the hardware because we thought a market for soft phones would emerge. However with the exception of Skype no one did a good job on software. So frustrated 9 months ago, we decided to build our own client. Our goal is to build an open directory. I don't think we will knock Skype out of the running. I do hope that embracing open standards and openness will win the day in the long run. Skype has a huge lead and yet the world does change very quickly. We will be adding IM functionality to the product. Haven't started working on video. Will people really use it? It's fairly straightforward to add in for SIP and then setup video sessions. IM is the next big feature set we are adding. (Chris asks... how do I know it is recording. Skype is really missing the record feature). Now you can add sound effects while the call is happening. (Chris barfs....).

We are SIP based so we can use a regular phone to call any Gizmo client and vice versa. That is one of the benefits for connecting different networks from universities to small businesses. So you can dial direct using Gizmo. Want a real openness with our directory.

We are still in the earliest stage of VoIP. I talked to a major telco and they said we don't see the average consumer making calls on a PC. I got the same response years ago with people saying users won't play MP3's on PC's. Questioned about Mobile. The only hope to fundamentally compete with the wireless guys is WiMax. We need to watch how it develops and see how it delivers on its promise.

How long do you give Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft? Several examples today. eg Apple iChat that bastardizes SIP. MS Messenger and Windows use SIP but what it doesn't do is allow the tech details to go through firewalls. So far not done GIPS so voice isn't competitive. It astounds me that more people haven't taken a deeper look at Skype and followed a lot of their design choices like using GIPS.

You get free VoiceMail with Gizmo -- no charge it is included with your free account. If we tick advantages... recording the call, voicemail, we are not P2P like Skype so as an advantage we never commandeer your computer to route calls etc. We have chosen a different topography where we deploy relay servers around the world to assist in the routing of calls. Listen Skype has done a good job and they are a good marker. They do inflate their download numbers. We have an auto update feature built right in. We have a lot of catching up still to do. I do think that with the right partners we can close the gaps real quickly.

The challenge of the UI is to come up with the right balance between voice and IM. The challenge is how you balance these fairly different functionalities. We will have to make up a lot of it as we go on.

By Karim Pedersen, ComON. Translated for Skype Journal by Torben Nyhuus, Aalborg, Denmark.

The Padborg (a Danish border town to Germany) company Dangaard Telecom has made a partnership agreement with Skype. The agreement means that Dangaard Telecom may distribute Skype related products like headsets and wireless phones in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA).

Dangaard Telecom is Europe's largest distributor of mobile/cellular phones and the agreement opens the possibillity that Skype’s software can be integrated into smart phones.

Furthermore Dangaard Telecom and Skype will start a push/campaign to sell the ip-telephony products on the net.

Dangaard Telecom employs 1400 people in 16 countries. $1.5 B US in revenues. Dangaard Telecom focuses on distribution and Logistics.

For Skype this means more marketing clout in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. For Skype users, better access to peripherals and support. Also watch for Dangaard to intoduce mobility products.

Skype is on the move, building relationships with portals around the globe and now with distributors.

"When will Skype open access to their codecs?" Doc Searls asked me at the Always On picnic. It's not clear they will. If they do, the Jerk-O-Meter is an example of the kind of application you could build. A project of the MIT Media Lab, it analyzes voices during the call, telling users how much they are paying attention. Per their project page, "The current version of the application runs in Linux on the Zaurus VOIP phone. It uses Ron Caneel's code to extract the activity and stress levels in real-time."

The Skype API doesn't expose the audio stream; you must work through the operating system to get at it. The same is true of the upcoming Skype Video.

There's money in analyzing and transforming media streams, whether for call centers (like the Jerk-O-Meter), annotation services, call/video quality boosters, semantic content detectors, translators, relay services, or simple stress/lie detectors. The Skype API should safely expose the media streams, and provide mechanisms for user authorized manipulation and substitution of that media by a friendly application.

It won't be easy, but the market value is huge.

Have just read Richard Stastny's comprehensive recount of the goings-on around ENUM at the IETF meeting in Paris. I can't but help feel that, despite the good intentions, some decidedly anti-competitive actions are going on here by the carriers.

In essence, the telcos are keeping control over a numbering business that is being run as a cartel that keeps out non-POTS VoIP applications, and discourages new POTS entrants. And since there is (today) no defensible service element in "VoIP service" other than the trivial routing function, the erection of artificial barriers to enable rent-seeking is priority #1, #2 and #3 in telcoland.

The importance of phone numbers is too easily dismissed in a world of email addresses, Skype IDs and IM buddies. Numbers work across all alphabets and typefaces, are relatively unambiguous, are easily entered and displayed on restricted UIs, and can easily be conveyed verbally and in print. We have a system for mnemonic mapping to letters where necessary. Competing global numbering schemes are unlikely to emerge, because of potential for namespace confusion (although local versions such as SMS short codes do sprout up). Numbering is serious business, if somewhat obscure and technocratic. Despite their sometimes confusing split semantics as "naming" and "routing" objects, they need not be casually dismissed as an obsolete anachronism of the pre-IP world.

The technical problem any ENUM system solves is the conversion of a phone number to any other form of URL (and back again). The specific business problem that Carrier ENUM purports to solve is one of trust. If the user is empowered to create records in the routing table for IP communications, you face two problems. Does the user really own/control the ID that they are mapping from? And do they own the one that they are mapping to?

The puchase of the voice service acts as the "trust anchor" — if we gave you the phone number and VoIP URL, the mapping must be correct.

Yet in doing this Carrier ENUM denies you any possibility of asserting ownership over your phone number independently of purchasing an overpriced "voice service". It's a bit like you only being able to buy domain names in conjunction with getting an email account at AOL or MSN. If you happened to want to use your email address (think: "phone number") in some crazy new-fangled service like instant messaging (think: VoIP), you've got a problem. Oh, sure, you can do it in various numbering range ghettos that aren't routed by half the world (and are charged at random rates by the other half). It's like Microsoft's support for Apple — sure, we like competition, as long as it knows its place.

With domain names, I can obtain clear ownership. I get to set a record for my domain that says who I'm empowering to manage the domain's details for me. In other words, someone thought through the various roles of ownership, assignment, management, operation, etc. in advance. They made a reasonable stab at creating a system that separated them. With hindsight we know it's not perfect and involves excessive expense, but it's quite good.

What you would really like to be able to do is enter someone's phone number in Skype, call them, and if they're using a Skype-enabled device you get an ecrypted, wideband audio Skype call. But we can't do that easily today because I could claim to have your phone number, and calls to you would come to me.

I'm totally guessing, but I assume that the PhoneGnome device (which bridges PSTN and VoIP calling) has some patented secret provisioning sauce to tackle this problem. The device, I suppose, places a free PSTN out-call and uses caller ID to associate the SIP address and PSTN number. (Self-provisioning would allow you to fib too easily.) But it doesn't scale well unless we all buy one; and an $119 device is kind of expensive if all you want to do is prove you are the owner of a phone number so you can use it in an IP service like Skype.

Carrier ENUM makes me feel a bit queasy, because there's no need to be a "carrier" to do VoIP or ENUM. If the VoIP application is independent of transport, will I be able to declare myself to be a carrier, obtain numbers, and participate in Carrier ENUM? Methinks not, and that smells bad. (I also suspect Carrier ENUM is great for perpetuating the dependence on SIP proxies and smart networks a-la IMS, and preventing P2P connections. You can bet the technical rules will subtly stop any domestic IP connection from being classed as "carrier grade" and allowed to participate in Carrier ENUM as a peer.)

So is the only alternative the unattainable nirvana of User ENUM, where the plebs seize control? Not necessarily, but we could take some baby steps along the way.

If I were a regulator, I'd be looking to unbundle the phone number trust function.

Luckily, we've already got a model for it, at least in the UK. If you want to port your wholesale DSL line from one company to another, the requestor must receive an authorisation code issued by the incumbent. And the incumbent must authenticate the user when they request the code.

Break apart this mechanism, and it provides me a way of requesting codes, and third parties using them to authenticate my ownership, but without actually completing a number port.

This only works for the phone number ("E164 number" in telcospeak). If I wanted to map it to my Skype ID, I still need a similar mechanism to assert ownership of that ID. This strikes me as a problem easily solved with today's digital ID technology ;)

It would not be unreasonable for a "virtual VoIP network operator" like Skype to charge you for access to this trusted directory function. Particularly if the receipient was a POTS (or POTS-on-IP) competitior that wants to disintermediate the Skype network while still allowing the use of Skype IDs! (There's an business model struggling to emerge in every VoIP operator…) Given the near-zero barrier to market entry, let the market find a price, I say.

Since numbers are also de-provisioned and re-cycled, invalidating the truth of ownership, there needs to be a mechanism to publish these events. This is non-trivial. But even if we don't solve this problem at all, the system seems stronger than the contract-based alernative of DUNDi, where the user unilaterally asserts truth in identifier ownership, and post hoc regulation deals with miscreants. At least we got the records right up front, even if they age badly.

This solution may be a turkey. I've no idea. But there are plenty of other possibilities lined up. For example, I could port control of my number to Skype, but retain the actual voice service somewhere else. If DNS can separate out the ownership, registration and operation roles, so can numbering. Part of the problem is being presented with a false dichotomy of Carrier vs. User ENUM. Another part is ENUM accepts the legacy world of phone numbers on the carrier's terms - such as accepting only the management roles that existed in the old world. It may seem pragmatic now, but we'll regret it later as new features take decades to reach "numbered" devices via the numbering cartel.

A deeper part of the problem is the assumption that we want a single, monolothic POTS application — that calling any phone number should make a single device "ring" and be answered. The idea you would place a bell in your house and remotely allow anyone in the world to activate it day or night will seem truly quaint to our grandchildren. ENUM focuses tightly on legacy phone numbers and their messed-up meanings, rather than offering a general frameworks for inter-service interoperability. Is ENUM a good answer to a bad question?

Anyhow, let's disaggregate the functions behind the Carrier ENUM curtain. Let multiple domain-specific registries and directories emerge, re-combining the elements in new and useful ways. Let them be safe in the knowledge that the records in their directories have at least some kernel of truth to them. Let some competition into places that don't know what competition and innovation are.

Here's the scenario. Lady calls bank. Bank routes call to India. Nice chap in Indian call centre talks to lady. Lady can't understand half of what he says because call quality is a bit duff. (The IVR system sounded great, so it's not at her end.)

Here's the business opportunity. You're a VoIP "virtual network" operator. Deliver high quality encrypted speech over the Internet to Indian call centres. Indeed, when I use a service like SkypeOut and enter my bank's number, you just look up first if you have a non-PSTN route to them. (Be it ENUM or proprietary technology, I don't care.) Doesn't need anything new in the customer's eyes.

Customer satisfaction goes up. You take a tiny slice of revenue from your bank partner for delivering a wideband audio experience to a large public user base, many of whom are the bank's customers. Let's call them "origination fees" to make the analysts happy. Everyone walks away contented.

(And if you're an old-fashioned 1st-gen VoIP operator who just cloned vanilla PSTN service, you're out of luck. Again. The point of IP is new features and functionality, not arbitrage.)

No doubt some of the SIP-heads out there are wondering why anybody would pay someone like Skype to deliver customers when it can be done for free. Just remember, bottled water is big business, even though tap water is free. Same reason.

Now can you see why Skype might start to have a significant market value? And that some of the partners might be folks like Avaya, who stand to gain a ton of dosh upgrading call centres to new techology? How long until you can IM with the call centre agent you're talking to, and they can just cut'n'paste stuff into their forms? Just lift stuff straight from your Skype profile? Would you use Skype or the PSTN if the former relieved you of ever waiting in a queue, and simply IM'd you back when your turn was up?

The business model is out there. You just have to look.

Linda tells me, "I would never do video." Dina says, "I feel naked!"

For many the web is a place of fear: fear of being flamed, fear of being "hit on" by the opposite sex, spammed, infected with a virus, or of someone hacking into your computer. To protect themselves many users hide behind NAT Routers, double firewalls and strive for anonymity hiding behind pseudonyms and avatars. Trust takes a longer time to build in this environment. It might take weeks or even months weeks before you share a pic of youself with what was a brief time ago a complete stranger. Given the potential intimacy provided by live video this behaviour seems to suggest that video will be in low demand or its use constrained.

But other real-life examples tell a different story. Video is hot. 500,000 Skype fans downloaded Video4IM and vSkype in the first 30 days of the beta release of both these products. WebCams are hot too. This ChannelTimes article (server down at time of posting) claims Skype's partner Logitech shipped its 25th million webcam this year (37 % of the world market according to research firm IDC).

Is all this activity about moms and grandchildren? Or is sharing real-time images of you and your environment simply cool. Does video dramatically enhance voice and Skype Chat? So what is the story here? And what is your story? Is your video pic a real-time emoticon?

Robin Batt's story covers both sides, "I get more of a feeling of a connection with Kay, she's based in Italy, we speak daily, IM all the time. If she leaves her camera on, I know when she's there, I can see when she's frowning/laughing/doing something else. Although, Kay doesn't like it because it makes her self-conscious."

"There is a big opportunity in making cute little apps that let you mess with your appearance. I'd actually like to find a developer who can and build a couple. Could be either really sophisticated photographic touch up or could be really easy to build little cartoon cutouts like, today's Friday, I've got my real face, but my party hat on or or, you could have fake backdrops so if I'm talking with a client I put a fake office backdrop on so I look like I'm in a smarter environment than I really am.

I think video will be about fun long before about doing mission critical business much like mobile, emoticons, ringtones etc. Mobile operators ALWAYS get it wrong they are only just learning now that mobile data is about killing time, not saving time. That's especially important in the mobile environment waiting for a friend in a bar, waiting for the bus, dentist, taking the train somewhere, even if using business apps - like stock tickers - you're doing it more to kill time than to save time that's my philosophy anyway.

I think video is the same as mobile. It will be more about social interaction - friends goofing around...than business communications...in the beginning. Killing time and goofing around become the drivers for the mobile and video market until the deeper uses get discovered.

And until people get familiar with it...or until it becomes so popular on a social level that it starts to virally pervade businesses anyway...so they decide to harness it so they can control it...and it becomes an enterprise app (like IM did). Plus I don’t think goofing around is necessarily shallower. Nothing wrong with goofing around.

oh, and porn of course - always an early driver of new tech. Although that's an interesting one because the phone/online/text sex industry benefits from the fact that the buyer cant see the 'hot chick' to validate if she really is hot. That changes in the video environment, obviously."

I wonder if Robin has it right with her comment on hot chicks? I wonder whether in fact all chicks are hotter in a video call than a voice call. Are there not more "emoticons" happening in video? Doesn’t live video provide more to feed your imagination; not less?

Tell us about your experience with video. What "deeper uses" than goofing around will make Skype Video a pervasive application? Is it a killer-app for job interviews? Does Skype video enhance voice and chat messaging for you? In what ways?

Are you afraid of Skype video; are you videophobic?

Skype $3 billion dollar sellout? Is there a real story here? Robert X. Cringely adds to the rumor mill by reporting that Skype was almost sold last week for $3 billion to Rupert Murdoch who just bought MySpace for an extraordinary sum. Was that the reason for Tim's exuberant chatter at AlwaysOn?

Some facts and figures in this piece are clearly wrong to Skype watchers. Some numbers, e.g. the value of the "customers," suggest a possible valuation method. I do agree with part of his conclusion that Skype should partner with an independent mobile carrier. (T-Mobile? in the US) Still his assumption: no IPO in Skype's future; with a buyout nearly certain. The creative speculation appears shrewd and informed. So the questions?

• Is Skype worth $3 billion? 30 billion?
• Does Skype's M&A rumors affect partner plans and willingness to commit?
• Which buyers are more acceptable to Skypers? To Skype's business ecosystem?
• The money from an acquisition goes to the current owners (founders, some employees, investors). If you buy Skype for billions, how much more money would you want to invest and where would you put your money? If you and raised billions where would you spend the cash you raised?

What do you think? Can you substantiate? Read his blog Skyped.

Google is a perfect example of this latter effect, entering the market years after Alta Vista and Excite. And the Google of VoIP looks like it might be Skype, which was almost sold last week to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $3 billion. PBS | I, Cringely . July 28, 2005 - Skyped

Others that are talking Skype sell stories...
Om Malik
Newswireless
Mark Evans
Loic on Murdoch
Andrew Hansen
Jim Courtney: A Skype Investment Primer
Robert Scoble
Carlos N Velez: "Let's start a new rumor... Google is in serious merger discussions with Skype. The new company, to be called GooSky...."
Carlo at TechDirt
Jeremy Wagstaff: "I suppose we should steel ourselves for the possibility that it doesn't last, at least in its present format."
Michael Parekh: It's all Rope-a-dope
OnoTech: "Wrong, wrong, wrong"

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!

Firecrackers echoed down the street, through my window this evening. An early welcome to America's Independence Day weekend. The sounds of war used to celebrate, and to remember.

We weren't the first, nor the last, to fight a war for national independence. We fought to rule ourselves, a freedom from monarchy. We get to vote, organize, and lobby - to have our voices heard, to hold those we elect responsible, to cast a strong light on their work and the personnel who operate our governments. It's an imperfect arrangement, but democracy is all the rage.

When telephone networks were first rolled out, they were private affairs run by companies.

We've added government to the equation since then. To assure universal access. To compel emergency services. To break up monopolies, increase competition, keep prices affordable for the many. To protect caller privacy, fend off telemarketers, and access for the deaf.

There are many governments with a say. Cities. Counties. States. Nations. International lands. Tribal lands. Each representing the interests of their constituencies.

These often conflict with the interests of a profit-minded company.

Like Skype.

A company with users on seven continents. Beholden only to the commercial interests of its investors and executives.

Leaving government out of it for the moment, how can Skype users assert their interests?

• How might we organize?
• Do we need our own virtual town hall?
• Do we even need representative democracy or can direct democracy work?
• Do corporations have a voice, or just people who may work for/with corporations?
• How about electing directors to Skype's board after they go public?
• Need we group our voices by geography? Language? Operating system? Dominant communication mode (text, voice, video, etc.)?
• What recurring issues warrant standing bodies?
  • Security? Privacy? System health?
  • Foreign relations? With other networks? With governments?
  • Taxation and funding?
  • Development direction?
  • Certification and testing of Skype-compatible systems?
  • Accessibility?
  • Universal Access?
  • Names and Identity disputes?
  • What else?

Your Skype Citizen Assignment for this week:

Chat with a friend. Talking points:

1. Will Skype become as important to you as your other phones?
2. What would you miss if Skype Technologies was taken over by bad people?
3. Who can you call if you want Skype to do something?

If you record your text or audio conversations, please let us know.
Suggestions for Skype Citizen Assignments are welcome; please leave your comments.