Will mesh networks necessarily evolve in an ‘open’ direction? I see this as an assumption, and one which is not necessarily true.

We’re seeing a progression in the nature of tele/com over a 50+ year period. Pre-Carterphone and the deregulation process, you owned nothing. You might even have been forced to rent your CPE from a limited telco-controlled selection.

30 years from now, we anticipate a complete reversal. The users, directly or indirectly, come to own the network. That could be via direct ownership, such as mesh or customer-built fiber; indirect, via some co-operative, housing or municipal association; or “reversed” where the other “end” of the end-to-end stupid network is someone like Google who subsidises connectivity. In any case, the telco has no more say over the transport than the company who laid and maintains the road outside your house has over where you drive.

We’re just in a messy middle transition phase with some unfortunate path-dependent detours.

The physics suggest a very large future for mesh networks. We can make up for hard Shannon limits by substituting computational effort in the devices. This computational effort is currently limited by our technology and imagination rather than physics, and seems set to remain so for several decades to come.

Now for the hard question: will the co-operative, open model of the IETF/IEEE necessarily triumph in implementation of mesh networks?

Future A: We end up with self-configuring, open, abuse-resistant mesh networks that easily attach themselves at suitable points to open Internet long-distance backhaul. The problem is mainly one of technical co-ordination (e.g. as the Wi-Fi alliance does for 802.11 interoperability).

Future B: We end up with closed mesh networks “owned” by those with the greatest distribution muscle. These need not be telcos; indeed, MotoNet and NokiaConnect are just as likely. The problem becomes one of economic co-ordination. For example, Nokia mesh devices are more attractive because Nokia has negotiated a broader coverage of back-haul provisioning and interconnect agreements; and Nokia’s 30% global market share gives it a decisive distribution advantage in attaining a critical mass of devices.

(If you’re a long-dated bond holder of a mobile operator’s debt, you’re excused now if you need to make a quick trip to the barf room, since neither scenario seems to play well for you.)

I find it really hard to discriminate between these futures. Are closed networks like Skype an inevitible short-term solution to integration issues of new technology, with the long-term always the property of open networks?

Sticking with the app layer as an example, will Skype prosper because it’s “cost of entry” is zero, unlike the prior closed e-mail operators like Compuserve? What are the real determinants of whether networked systems become ‘open’ or ‘closed’? Do those terms really have meaning?

Open for comments!

via Telepocalypse.

Skype recently announced a new set of website buttons. This is the first real use of their expanded range of Skype tags. This allows you to integrate calls for text, voice, add a contact, file sharing, and voice messaging just by clicking on a website. It's convenient and provides lots of potential to create new communication solutions.

The latest transparent drop down is really rather neat. It provides all the different ways to contact me. It's quite an advancement. Follow the link to get yours.

Skype buttons can be used on your website, blog or even in your email signature to let other people contact you easily. Share Skype

Then I began thinking about it. What's different here? I took a closer look at comparing the old and new buttons.

This is an orginal early Skype call button:

The new buttons:

First time round I almost missed it. No it's really true. Skype has dropped "Skype" from all its buttons. Maybe they think the branding of the buttons is now so strong everyone gets it? Maybe they did some research and many people seeing these buttons on websites failed to understand their meaning? Perhaps I should be asking them first why they dropped "SkypeMe"?

I thought about this and my response is very much from the heart as a user. Asking questions now would ignore my judgement and reduce the impact of just blogging it. I can sum it up in one sentence. I don't want you to Call me I want you to Skype me.

Here's my logic: Skyping is a multi-dimensional communication tool. I want a Skype experience. That includes chat and voice messages and buddylists etc. I don't want you to call me. I'm not thinking "shooting the breeze" on a telephone. I was almost the first in the world to put a SkypeMe callto tag on a blog. I wore it as a revolutionary badge of honor. It was a statement and an invitation. It became part of our vocabulary - marketers and brand managers will know how utterly powerful that can be, when their brand enters consumer parlance.

In some countries "call me" is the thing you say when running down a hall when you don't have time to stop or be polite. It's not a call to action. By contrast Skype was defining behavior and providing a sense of access and urgency. You are here, you are on my site, here is my invitation. Add presence and the availablity info increases exponentially. From the Skype perspective, you had a unique brand property in Skypeme.

I thought I'd check with a couple of my buddies. Dina's comment summed it up for me.

"hmmm some of the new buttons are pretty nice to use with friends. Am not sure i would change the old SkypeMe button though for clients in an email signature .... it just seemed more business-like. Why have they removed 'Skype' from the call me tag? I kind of liked it .. it made me feel more on-the-edge, like i was using something special. I know it made many of my clients inquire about what Skype is ... and some even adopted it. Call me as a button is confusing too ... i already have my landline and mobile number in my email signature ... and i think i may confuse my clients with this additional Call Me button."

There are some schools of marketing that believe you only want the consumers saying the shortened name or using it as a verb. Did Xerox ever talk about anything other than copying? How did Miller Genuine Draft become MGD etc.? Here Skype has become a verb and we understand SkypeIn and SkypeOut and we now have a callto tag that says "Call Me". Is it just me or has it all gone flat? I can't see the hype or the excitement in Call me. And effectively, you are asking me to change my vocabulary again, having thus far carved a unique position in my mind. Competitors can come up with similar Call Me buttons - none could have used Skype Me. What then is your unique badge?

To make matters worse I watched an SBC commercial on television tonight. Guess what the tagline is? I don't have it perfect... the thrust was SBC "Beyond the Call". When I see it again or remember I will insert it.

I looked some more at the branding and the tags. They are all bigger than the smallest before. The drop down conceptually is really rather cool. Still how does it fit in with my email signature? Is it business like enough? The speech bubble may be alright for Skype staffers but really you must be kidding if you think I'm going to add it to my signature. So overall the selection is way down. Not as many colors and limted shapes. Which brings up two more issues.

Look at the drop down Call Me tag again. (Leave a VM if you want to test it). Now why did Skype fail to incorporate a download Skype link and tie it into the Skype Affiliate program at the same time. (BTW I think if you don't have Skype installed it automatically takes you to a download Skype page although I haven't confirmed this I know it is possible.)

Then think some more. This drop down tag is a perfect way to send a message to contact a company. Thus why isn't there a "SkypeUs" option. That suggests you are getting the generic number for the business. With the latest advances in Skype 1.4 for Windows with call forwarding there are many new ways to encourage Skype onto the business site. For business I could provide a whole set of encouraging options. Some others may want to put the "Call Us on Skype" as the button. Or "Call us Free on Skype". Both these last two promote a key benefit. It's free. The cost of developing them isn't very much. In the end downloads will tell which ones people want.

Thus we have some real progress in the implementation of Skype tags. The current group needs a quick expansion.

There are also options that could significantly enhance these tags. For example the tags could provide my picture, or a company logo. Whatever is put in the Skype profile. I'd also look more to the "buddylist" development. When or if we get headless clients. It could be those buddylists that we are simply scrolling though on a site to connect. Online by department etc.

So there you have it. A strong response. I'm not that interested in adopting these tags although I will use and incorporate the drop down tag. My strong response is a gut level one. I would have loved to debate it with whoever developed it. If I had I would have had more context to write this blog post around. As it is, there isn't a story that satisfies me this was the right move or well done. Questions I could be still waiting for answers on:

• Why do you want to adopt "Call me" rather than SkypeMe?
• What assortment should we have? How many variations? Where will it be used? By whom etc.
• Have you asked other users?
• How are you planning to promote the new tags?

It's quite possible I'm all wrong. Still I'm a Skyper for one and I still want a "SkypeMe" button. Is that too much to ask?

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.