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?
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.
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."
...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.
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.
Or at least to provide NSA with the algorithms and keys for Skype. If you have that then you don't need to add a backdoor.
It's time for something else now.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
You are obviously neither a CPA nor an MBA. The general rule of thumb is that an investment must have a ROI of less that 7 years max, and ideally under 3 years. Otherwise, you are much better off making a different investment choice with 8.5 Billion dolars.
I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
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.
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
No we wont. We have had video conferencing in the hands of everyday people for over a decade now, with the last 5 years seeing huge penetration. No one is using it.
Good-bye
Admit it, you have no friends, and you don't want your Mom watching you watch porn....
This is the Internet... I am sure there is a subgroup that does want this.
My bad mind saw "huge penetration" and made me think of Chatroulette, and not Skype.
> 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.
Why would NSA pay Microsoft, a US company $8.5billions to buy Skype from eBay, another US company?
> You'd be nuts in the post Snowdon world to assume anything else.
Tell me about it. NSA has cameras in every corner of my house. Outside in the trees. In my toilet. Many of my kids' toys need batteries, not just for moving the motors in the toys but they have cameras and mics in them too. I do my best to get rid of this stuff. When I threw my wife's DSLR and cell phone in the garbage along with all the kids' toys, she first gave me the blank stare and then started screaming at me. Small price to pay, if you ask me.
Some people say that I am overreacting. But they don't know much of what I have read on the Internet. Only if they had read some of the same forum posts that I have.
Who here remembers those OFFICIAL microsoft chat servers from back in 1998 or so?
I think 6 months after I discovered them, most or all of netmeeting servers were taken offline. I haven't touched that project ever since.
Today I noticed that with the huge heavyhanded April push sunsetting MSN messenger in favor of Skype, skype has been updated repeatedly and I've been declining without seeing what they're taking out.
I had to help someone test the software on their own computer today. Their updated "Call" button is now "Call PHONE" (implies cash expenses.) I won't be putting up with GUI changes meant to force me into paying.
MS also chose to fail to migrate the Hotmail new email and single-sign-on integration that its userbase loved. They were clearly aiming at forcing more Skype chatting, more potential paid calling and less email usage.