Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
Summary: Now that Microsoft owns Skype, can the industry finally settle on a video conferencing standard?
Now that Microsoft owns Skype, can the industry finally settle on a video conferencing standard?
So Microsoft bought Skype, for $8.5 billion. I have to say, I'm surprised by this as much as anyone else. $8.5 billion is a lot of dough for a VOIP/Telepresence service, and it was a completely unexpected move by the Redmond software giant.
But as Larry Dignan points out, perhaps there's some sense to be made out of all of this.
A while ago I wrote about the problems with personal telepresence. Most of the issues I pointed out in that article have to deal with social norms and barriers, not technological problems. But I did point out what could stop telepresence from becoming particularly popular is the lack of unified protocols for an "any device to any device" video conferencing session.
Why personal telepresence will fail: It ain't the price
Today, we have any number of video and VOIP chat clients and services, but interoperability between them is virtually nonexistent.
Apple has FaceTime which works between iOS devices and Macs.
Google has GTalk which works on PCs, Macs, Google TV and Android tablets, but doesn't support video calls on Android or iOS smartphones yet.
Cisco has their own protocols that they are developing for their Android-based Cius tablet as well as their Umi personal telepresence devices, and have multi-platform versions of WebEx which can do video conferencing (such as on the iOS version) but have not released anything Android or iOS generic for person-to-person video conferencing that can also talk to their corporate platforms or even an Umi.
And RIM's QNX-based BlackBerry Tablet OS has its own video chat, which although provides for a high-quality experience, can only talk to other PlayBook devices at the moment.
And I'm not even going to talk about the other rans such as Fring and AOL's IM video chat. Fortunately Skype recently bought Qik, which now brings that technology into Microsoft's portfolio.
In summary, what we've got right now is a spaghetti mess of platforms that can't talk to each other.
Skype has a number of advantages which could make all of these problems go away, particularly with Microsoft's backing as a major industry player in the desktop operating system space.
Firstly, integrating Skype/Qik into the next major version of Microsoft Windows Live Messenger will ensure that every copy of Windows with that client installed will be able to communicate with Skype installed on Macs, Linux desktops, Windows Phone 7, Android, iOS and QNX (provided it is ported to that platform given Microsoft's new partnership with RIM).
That alone will be a huge value add, provided that of course Apple continues to cooperate and allows Microsoft to distribute a competing video chat standard on their App Store.
And of course, having all of this integrated into Live Messenger adds additional value into having a Live account in the first place.
I think there's another way Microsoft could go about this, however, rather than relying upon distributing a standardized Windows Live/Skype client itself to other platforms. This would be to open its video/VOIP standards for companies like Apple, Google, Cisco so those companies could integrate the protocols themselves into their own products, such as FaceTime, or Umi, or Cius, Or GTalk.
In essence, provide the plumbing and infrastructure to make everyone else's video chat software work.
There are other features which Microsoft could add into this mix, such as a unified messaging service similar to Google Voice. Microsoft could put one of these together home-grown, or they could buy yet another player in order to complete the portfolio.
Will Microsoft improve Video and VOIP communications standards? Talk Back and Let Me Know.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
It's only taken 20 years to get this far (from the old ISDN days.)
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
No, that would be a major backward step. Lync is a pure SIP product. It's also far more powerful than Skype. I'd rather see the Skype features that Lync doesn't have added to it, such as Brady Bunch view.
MS Telephony
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
It may be the cynic in me.. but...
That would be nice, wouldn't it? Of course, the other way to see it, is Microsoft could just roll the videoconferencing technology into Windows Live Messenger and (more likely) Office Communicator and then decide that there's no longer a need for a Linux, Mac OS X, QNX or Android version of the client. Or any need of a stand-alone client at all.
Of course, it could be the cynic in me. After all, Microsoft has always been pretty good at keeping feature parity accross platforms, and isn't really known for killing good technology just to try to muscle their way to dominance..
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
Microsoft isn't that kind of company...
What you describe is more the business strategy of certain Open Source companies, not Microsoft...
Microsoft likes to make money - despite the fact that they are known at times to use their muscle to try to dominate a market, in the end their decisions are generally based on whether or not MS sees the potential to make a profit, not whose face they can "rub in it."
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
Licensing it..
<i>Microsoft already licenses ActiveSync to Apple so that it can work with Exchange messaging. I see no reason why they couldn't do the same with VOIP and teleconferencing protocols to make FaceTime compatible with Skype.</i>
That's a good point, Jason. I guess, again, Apple and MS would both have to see some value in doing so - and up till now with a Skype stand-alone client being available for both Mac and Windows, that value wasn't there.
I can see Microsoft pocketing some pretty good coin from a license deal while being able to (again) define and control a standard that, no doubt, has the potential to be used all over the internet for video communication.
In turn, Apple can add a "compatibility" chip to their stack which they are sorely missing, with iChat only being compatible to AIM - using the word "compatible" pretty tenuously. Apple could still offer a "superior" experience with Facetime - to - Facetime chats which could no doubt help plant the iDevice seed in potential customers.
You LEFT the BEST one OUT!
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
The Best Will be......
All Free!!!!
Ain't no such thing as "free".
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
tauren: Irrelevant...
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
And why would MS want a standard?
RE: Microsoft meets Skype: It's about the video conferencing plumbing
And whats wrong with that? What do you think google would have done with it?
double post