Slashdot Mirror
Skype: Has Microsoft's $8.5B Spending Paid Off Yet? Can It Ever?
mspohr writes "The Guardian has an article by Charles Arthur who predicted over two years ago that Microsoft's purchase of Skype for $8.5 billion was 'a gamble unlikely to pay off.' Arthur has penned a followup providing a fairly detailed analysis of his original criticism (he was wrong about some parts), an update on Skype performance, and a conclusion that it's not as bad as some of the other acquisitions. 'Skype, the company points out, now connects directly into Office 365, Xbox, Windows 8, Bing, Microsoft Messenger, Windows Phone and Lync, its business-oriented VOIP solution, and soon into Outlook.com for everyone. ... Certainly, integration of Skype into all those offerings is what the purchase should have been about. And it does look as though Microsoft has pulled it off. ... But has it pulled off $8.5B worth of integration?'"
And why is it important to have chat built into my spreadsheet again?
... was forked over from the US Government to add a convenient back door to Skype?
Considering they can listen in to all the calls via Prism, you would think the NSA would be nice enough to chip in a little dough and help Microsoft out.
Surely the NSA cheques have lessened the bill a little bit.
Next story. Can we get some "real" news please?
Having our own dedicated TeamSpeak server our gaming group rarely uses Skype anymore. The quality of Skype is noticeably better but _dynamic_ "conference" calls are a pain to setup with Skype. Microsoft is not making a dime off us and probably never will. We'll probably switch to an open source Skype replacement at some point in a year or two.
I don't know how the hell Microsoft "justified" the billions it paid for Skype. You can't "buy" popularity as much as Microsoft would like.
Is Skype disappearing today? If not, then Microsoft does not need to have recovered the cost by now. To make economical sense, they only need to have recouped their losses by the time Skype closes down. And that includes the funneling, loss leader and etc that connecting to all of these other systems will allow for.
All in all, Microsoft has turned Skype into what they want it to be now, and unlike the other emBalments, this one turned out well. Kudos.
Seems like the larger question here isn't whether or not Skype will pay off, but how much it costs to aquire a well known company vs. build a competing product in house.
While Microsoft was busy loading up suitcases with cash, Google churned out Google Talk / Hangouts. Did that cost $8.5 billion to build and market?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
wank wank wank
Methinks this article could use a little more input from the editor.
><));>
If you could actually use it for secure communications that weren't being routed through the Puzzle Palace, I think many people would gradually adopt it over conventional phone communication. But it doesn't have that feature.
...And it does look as though Microsoft has pulled it off. ... But has it pulled off $8.5B worth of integration?'"
Well, if anyone uses Outlook or Skype to communicate, then yes. Yes, MS has "pulled off $8.5B worth of integration" for the NSA.
Skype is confirmed to be back-doored. And, with its brilliantly obfuscated code, would reasonably be expected to have a few more.
Pretty much everyone I know, when Live Messenger service stopped, instead of moving on to Skype, just decided to use facebook instead. Many say they didn't get the "memo" (email) about changing to skype, while they in fact did but thought it was just spam.
Microsoft really botched the transfer, should've just force updated people who were on Live Messenger to Skype.
They plan on making a profit by charging the NSA for PRISM access.
All of those are incredibly valuable. The CIA alone spends $11.5 billion on Data Collection Expenses each year. And of all organizations, Skype is one of the most able to provide information to them - whatever your PC's microphone's hearing now - whatever non-skype-related files Skype keeps accessing even though it has no need to - etc.
> Skype: Has Microsoft's $8.5B Spending Paid Off Yet?
Skype's Former Owners: Yea bigtime!!!!2!1!!!1
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It should be obvious that the money didn't come from Microsoft. It came from the NSA.
They wanted to wiretap all Skype conversations. They got Microsoft to buy it for that end.
You'd be nuts in the post Snowdon world to assume anything else.
All programs expand until they can read mail.
Most moves in Chess are devoted to preventing an opponent from developing a new line of attack, and may have a cost of diminishing your own lines of attack. purchasing skype was a hedge against being caught in a position where google voice was the killer application for cloud based project management and microsoft had no response. If google could see that microsoft would be caught flat footed they could have pushed google voice harder. But now that they see that at best that line of attack is a draw they aren't pushing it. SO it's the line of attack Microsoft prevented that you don't see.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
IN the future we will wathc our television shows with freinds who are in other locations. We'll have the conference call running with their faces along the bottom of the screen and we can chit chat about how awesome a moment in Breaking Bad season 9 was. Skype and xbox are the devices you need for this.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Howsabout "Fuck No!".
HOWEVER, judging at this point would be stupid in the extreme.
This isn't about taking a single benchmark after a couple years and declaring it "worth it".
This is about amortizing the cost against the value the product's integration bring into other products.
Even with further development and support costs, if it becomes a foundation technology for Microsoft for the next 5-10-15 years, $8.5 billion will have been VERY worth it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Of course Microsoft isn't going to make any profit on Skype if they don't actually use it in any of their products.
Sure it's in Office365, but it's not in Office 2012.
I guess it will be in the not-yet-released XBox One, but it isn't in the currently-available XBox 360.
They didn't give me the option of merging my Skype friends with the Xbox friends, or my Outlook contacts with the Skype contacts, only my MSN contacts (by now I had forgotten I even had any MSN contacts).
Some idealist in the Microsoft management probably thinks that Skype will be some sort of hook that makes people buy products and should therefore be limited to the products that most badly need marketing help. But in reality all they have done is put Skype on track to be obsolete before they even finish integrating it with any of their products. In a few years, Microsoft will have killed Skype like they killed Groove.
-Glires
I remember a time when Skype was a pretty good service, with quality connections and a fair interface. Now, it's gone to hell with bloat, malfunction and terrible phone service. It's almost like it was acquired by ....the goverment.
which is where the big bucks are.
The government exchanges Corporate secrets to those who cooperate. I'm sure the NSA is paying back their debt for buying Skype.
If, as the article states, you integrate with the following :
Office 365, Xbox, Windows 8, Bing, Microsoft Messenger, Windows Phone and Lync, its business-oriented VOIP solution, and soon into Outlook.com for everyone
you are integrating with products that are obviously and laughably not used by "everyone". Office 365, Windows 8, Bing, Outlook.com ? Never used them and hopefully never will (have to).
Where are the people in MS who used to support open standards (e.g. for web services), or have they all left, with the remainder of their employees knowing that any suggestion that things like Google and Apple actually exist are an instant ticket to the 10% their manager had to fire that year?
In the long term I think it will be worth it. Skype is a household name and is almost a verb for video chat now. Skype itself may not make $8.5 billion but the products receiving skype integration easily do and skype is a great feature for all those products which will help keep them competitive. Outlook plus skype would be a killer combination.
then it's nothing that PRISM won't fix. I, for one, am never going to use that product again. Which is a shame, because I really liked it (and I'm sometimes away for work and like to video-chat with my family back at home).
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
If I click ads disabled ? ;)
This must be a JOKE. As usual, the linux Skype has having huge compatibility problems, and I really believe it must be a "coincidence". And lets not get started about the backdoors they have for law enforcement agencies, or the devious nature of the p2p protocol.
It paid off just fine, for Skype, that is.
Now for Microsoft predicting it's own fate:
http://eviljim.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/msdino.png
... is that Skype works fine in most of popular platforms, including Windows, MacOSX, Linus distros, Android, iOS, Windows Phone.
..since the MS acquisition. In fact it's pretty much unusable on Android (by design?). Takes 4-5 attempts to connect and the video is terrible. As I recall the only reason Skype became so popular was because 'it just worked'. Well it just 'doesn't work anymore.
I think what he fails to see is some times it it is not about how much you make from the subscriber base, as in skypes. It is how much you save developing a competing product, or how much it increases your other products sales with the integration of the product. No one buys a Ferrari because it has run flat tires, but it is one of many things that justify the price.
Two big problems with skype today are trust (insert obvious NSA reference here), and stability which is well... Almost non-existant. Have an iffy-internet connection? Enjoy skype crashing on you like no tomorrow. Want to use skype for mobile? Good luck with that, it'll crash a lot. There's virtually almost nothing good with skype these days and it's a shame too. They don't have customer service (forum based only), and they do business overseas so you're chraged a foreign transaction fee per purchase. They removed many privacy features and features in general like themeing. Why can't I choose black anymore? Because Microsoft wants to brand it to death, that's why. I'm really tired of Skype, and I'm glad that Viber works much better. Microsoft, you can put my 8-bit coinpurse in your mouth and suck it.
I have used MSN for years. Then I was forced to 'upgrade' to Skype. I'm not sure if many people ever used MSN for voice, but it had this great feature of feedback cancellation. Basically it had an algorithm that subtracted what was coming out of your speakers from what was inputted into the microphone and sent, meaning I could seriously be listening to music / playing a game, speakers blaring, with a crappy old microphone from the 90's on my desk, and the other person could hear me talking. They could not hear the music, the game sounds, themselves. Anything, except noise not originating from my speakers. This is a pretty simple concept. Skypes solution to this is 'buy a headset'. A step backwards, but this is Microsoft, so what do we expect really... Anyhoo - I found a program called MSN reviver which allows you to reinstall MSN and have been using it happily ever since. Give it a shot if you don't believe me. Does anyone else know of any voice chatting software that can do this? I don't want to have to wear headphones damnit. Also - I liked having a button that showed how many new messages were in my inbox on my Hotmail account, and allowing me to open the inbox with a single click.
Microsoft has just about destroyed skype, so don't worry. They're keeping with their business model. Their latest version on android introduced numerous device and app breaking bugs making the software nearly unusable. The inability to make a useful bug report really shows us what Microsoft brings to the table.
While this is completely my opinion, it seems likely that the NSA paid MS to buy Skype, so then the NSA can easily gather the data/calls/videos from Skype users.
Be seeing you...
There's also the fact that you can ring regular phones with it, and international calls are heaps cheaper this way.
On the other hand, there's the fact that when using Skype for VoIP, there's exactly 1 single service provider for access to regular phones: Skype-In/Skype-Out.
While, when using SIP, there are tons of providers with a high competivity between them, giving you several possibilities of prices and quality.
Sometime *cheaper* than comparable offering from skype. (depending on price plan, countries called to, country for you own number, etc.)
Jitsi looks very interesting, but the fact that it's not available for iOS devices (and according to their FAQ, not likely to be) is a major impediment to widespread adoption
On the other hand, Jitsi uses open procotols:
- SIP & XMPP/Jingle are both industry standards for VoIP/Chats.
- OTR is a standard for message encryption (over anything carrying text messages).
- ZRTP/SRTP is a standard for audio/video stream encryption (over anything using RTP for its audio/video streams, like SIP and XMPP/Jingle).
and they all work as long as both ends support the standard (You can SIP call over iptel.org between Jitsi and Ekiga, you can exchange encrypted message over GTalk between Jitsi and Pidgin + OTR plugin, you can SIP call with encryption between Jitsi and Twinkle).
So as long as *anybody* writes a SIP + ZRTP/SRTP + OTR client for iOS, you can still use Jitsi to call them (mostly) securely.
The problem with iOS are elsewhere, but can't easily be stopped:
- Apple might reject any apps that they feel is replicating already provided functionality (just like they rejected GMail). They might reject such an Jitsi equivalent because it duplicates the calling/texting capabilities already offered by the present software stack.
You can't do much against it, it's Apple own decision about what they decide to interpret as "duplicated functionality".
- Apple's tems and conditions for Apps forbids (are technically incompatible with) the use of GPL and similar opensource. (An End user can't hack and replace part of an application installed on its phone). The most you can do is (if you are the owner of the copyright material, and not simply using licensed code from elsewhere) is to setup a website with the GPLed code, and separately release binary-only releases for Apple to put in the app store. Then the end-users have to trust you that the app is actually the same as the GPLed code and that nobody put a hidden backdoor in between.
For end-to-end encryption to be meaning full, you have to be able to trust both end points and Apple's requirement might jeopardize this.
- Last but not least, you CAN'T controll the OS running on your phone. You're limited to the official iOS versions released by Apple. (There's no equivalent to CyanogenMod like on android phones). Even if you can trust the application you're using, you can't necessarily trust the OS: the NSA might as well have asked Apple to put some backdoor helping them to steal the private keys of your encrypted VoIP application.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]