What Microsoft's Skype deal means
Summary: Microsoft nets a powerful consumer brand, another cloud service to sell, and an opportunity to provide managed B2B video, blogs Ted Schadler.
I'm not going to comment on the $8.5B purchase price, though I'm sure Marc Andreesen's investment company is happy with their return. And I'm not going to comment on the impact on Xbox, Hotmail, and Live.com. And I don't think this has anything to do with Windows Mobile. But I am going to comment on the impact of the deal on the enterprise, and specifically on content and collaboration professionals responsible for workforce productivity and collaboration. When you strip it down to its essence -- Skype operating as a separate business unit reporting to Steve Ballmer -- here's what you need to know about the Skype deal: First, Microsoft gets an important consumerization brand. Skype is a powerful consumer brand with a reported 600+ million subscribers. But it's also a "consumerization brand," meaning that it's a valuable brand for people who use Skype to get their jobs done. Consumerization of IT is just people using familiar consumer tools to get work done. It's a force of technology-based innovation as we wrote about in our book, Empowered: Unleash Your Employees, Energize Your Customers, Transform Your Business. Google and Apple and Skype have dominant consumerization brands. Microsoft does not. Until now. And as a bonus, Google doesn't get to buy Skype. And more importantly, neither does Cisco. Second, Microsoft gets another cloud service to sell. Microsoft's software revenues are under attack. That's one reason has built Office 365 and Windows Azure. While it's true that Skype has been slow to make money off its service, the potential is there. Local phone numbers, three-way video conferencing, business administration, and making calls to real phone numbers are all things that people will pay for. Skype has never had the money to market these services. Microsoft does. Third, Microsoft gets the opportunity to provide managed B2B video conferencing. Microsoft's Lync product delivers audio and video and chat and Web meetings, but only to other other employees or close partners. But with a managed gateway between Skype and Lync, people could use Lync-to-Lync to connect to colleagues and Lync-to-Skype to connect to customers and partners with video, audio, and chat. "Can't I already do this today with Skype" I hear you ask. Yes, you can. But only if IT looks the other way. With a Microsoft-sanctioned solution, IT could sign off on the practice.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Skype-Windows is built using Delphi
Yea, there will be a lot of different ways that Microsoft can screw this up
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
They will make it a .NOT application and destroy cross platform, forcing the open source community to duplicate the functionality.
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
".NOT Application"
Microsoft doesn't make many .NET applications. People would be able to easily see the IL, and pretty much see their source code. Obfuscation tries to stop this, but it doesn't really fix it.
The only thing making .NET not cross-platform is the lack of essentially a ".NET Framework" for other platforms (yes, there is Mono, but that doesn't support all the features...).
Existing .NET Applications would work fine on ARM, without needing to be re-compiled to IL code. They would just be JIT Compiled at runtime on the ARM platform to produce native machine code for ARM.
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
Take Anders Hejlsberg for example, he's the lead architect of C#. Even more interesting is Danny Thorpe is responsible for Windows Live... Hey if Microsoft can turn that Virtual PC mouse into Hyper-V, it's impossible to see that they can turn Skype into something big.
Danger OS, I think, is something different as it was designed by ex-apple employees and the software was based on NetBSD/JAVA philosophy. Did you know what happened after the data lost? They left and many of them joined Android where the founder of Android was also the founder Danger, Andy Rubin.
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
No offense intended here, but MS has many varied applications/subscription services. .NET is no longer the moneymaker it was because of MS"s move to forcefully obsolete and force full cost "upgrades" upon their users that a little of the .NET (not all by any means) has stopped growing and is slowly now lessening. There are/were many, many designers out there who were forced to either abandon their single-sourced applicatioins or go out of business. There are still many trapped in the MS-lock and who if they need to remain in business aren't likely to ever be able to leave MS. Many of the .net apps are absolute tie-ins with no other means of replicating them due to MS contracts, EULAs and obnoxiousness. I was one of the first IMO to be displaced by MS. Never again!
Well, if you don't talk about the purchase price, or how they will
I am afraid that was essentially ....
my reaction too. The price in particular matters a GREAT DEAL, except of course when you can spend someone else's money to try to shore up your sinking business.
Maybe MS should just milk its cash cows for all they are worth, pay the shareholders everything and let THEM decide how to re-invest the funds. That might be a lot better, but will not suit Ballmer's ego of course.
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
Question: Are you invested in Microsoft??
Funny
Welcome to Dot Bomb 2.0.
Well, Skype HAS made a lot of money for INVESTORS. It was not long ago that
More room for other players
You've been warned long ago
http://planet.gnu.org/gnutelephony/?p=14
1
Message has been deleted.
Message has been deleted.
Message has been deleted.
Message has been deleted.
RE: What Microsoft's Skype deal means
When I was deployed, Messenger worked better for me than Skype.