Skype lost $7m on $860m in revenues. The talk of Skype being a money-losing company, while technically true, seems highly exaggerated. Mix in some of Microsoft's excess infrastructure and Bing's existing ad engine, and even the biggest moron at Microsoft could make it "profitable" within a year.
This deal is about selling ads, not adding "features" to Windows. They bought 107 million users per month, along with a fairly useful service that should help keep those users sticking around. Integrate Skype as a standard feature in Windows computers and Nokia phones, and you should be able to add even more users. It may not make Skype the industry standard, but it should make it as easy and accessible as Facetime on an Apple product -- except with a real, revenue-producing user base and true cross-platform compatibility.
Microsoft wants "eyes" from any platform possible, so it seems ridiculous to suggest that they will kill cross-platform compatibility. They may even have the resources to push out Skype for iPad, which one would think should have been out on launch day.
Apple makes money selling hardware. Unless they sell a revolutionary $150 aluminum USB ultra-HD+ magical proprietary camera, why would Apple open Facetime to other devices and platforms? They've never made iTunes open to other audio/video devices, and iTunes actually has separate revenue potential from iTunes store sales.
Hmmm. . . I don't think your original question was quite as clear as you apparently think it was. I didn't (and don't) read it the way you claim to have intended. So we're simply arguing semantics I guess. Nothing more to discuss on that subject then.
I did try to explain why the purchaser makes a difference. That might not have been as clear as I intended either since you didn't get it.
I understood Apple's original plan was expecting FaceTime to become the industry standard. Apple would have had much more influence with FaceTime over an independent Skype who had an interesting product but limited sesources to continue development quickly and effectively. Now with MS in the mix, Skype rolled into the OS itself in all likelihood and pre-installed on every Win7 (and Win8\) mobile device, the chances of Facetime calling the shots and leading the way went from 50/50 to slim IMHO.
There's your difference. Apple users will still have FaceTime to play with amongst themselves. Unless they have a Windows version ready to roll, I don't see any chance of it being considered a serious application going forward, even by many Apple fans.
I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.
It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.
Actually, it's much worse (or better, if you were Silverlake). I think eBay dumped Skype for either $1.2B or $1.4B, way less than they paid for it. Took a huge write-off too.
This deal is about selling ads, not adding "features" to Windows...
Good observation. That's Facebook's plan too (after all, they're not making much from their users either).
However, there's only so many fixed ad dollars to go around, and whatever these guys grab will come from Google, since the ad pot is not growing much larger (or growing very slowly, if at all).
So, on balance, this is good news for (non-ad-dependent) Apple.
Editors, and I use the term loosely, why is Facetime called a standard when no one but apple uses it? it is no more a standard than Memory Stick or a-trac, or Apple Lossless codecs...it works on one vendors products, and only their products, it is their platform, not a standard. Skype is also not a standard, only Skype clients work with it IIRC.
Editors, and I use the term loosely, why is Facetime called a standard when no one but apple uses it? it is no more a standard than Memory Stick or a-trac, or Apple Lossless codecs...it works on one vendors products, and only their products, it is their platform, not a standard. Skype is also not a standard, only Skype clients work with it IIRC.
HTTP, tcp/ip, MP3, MP4 are examples of standards.
SJ said Apple was going to work to make it open, and work with organizations that create standards.
Facetime is is less than a year old at this point (compared to the 7 or 8 years that Skype has been around), so perhaps you need to be a little patient.
SJ said Apple was going to work to make it open, and work with organizations that create standards.
Facetime is is less than a year old at this point (compared to the 7 or 8 years that Skype has been around), so perhaps you need to be a little patient.
Why not make it open first and then announce that it is open?
Facebook was looking for a video component, if MS manages to force them onto Skype then FaceTime is in trouble. If Facebook on the other hand started using FaceTime, Skype would quickly become a seniors-only Windows-only affair.
Also, Apple hasn't released anything for non-Apple platforms, but they indicated they were going to. If there is a FaceTime for Windows then the battle is truly on and I like FaceTime's chances.
I so want Apple to release FaceTime for Windows.
My fiancee lives over 200KMs away and every night we are on Skype. The problem is that Skype is just such a poor service with communication problems regularly.
At one stage we were getting cut off every five minutes and ended up using GTalk which was not much better.
Things got a bit better when I hooked my Airport Extreme to dad's but it still drops connection inexplicably. And that's just with voice, it's immensely worse with video.
Why not make it open first and then announce that it is open?
In case you did not know, Facetime is based on open standards. I don't know how else to tell you that. See, e.g.(with the usual WP caveats), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.
In case you did not know, Facetime is based on open standards. I don't know how else to tell you that. See, e.g.(with the usual WP caveats), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.
Did you guys read the Wired article yet? They don't seem to think too much of Skype's benefit to MS.
I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.
It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Actually, it's much worse (or better, if you were Silverlake). I think eBay dumped Skype for either $1.2B or $1.4B, way less than they paid for it. Took a huge write-off too.
Sevenfeet was right: eBay did sell Skype for $2.75B (not $1.2B or $1.4B as I had suggested).
After reading that document it looks like Skype should fit in nicely with Windows. It has been speculated that the original programmers of the Windows source code, who have since left the company, did so without actually explaining or documenting large parts of the low level functions and now no one at Microsoft actually understands exactly how it works. Looks like Skype may have the same problem, especially if key people leave during the transition. They certainly went to great lengths to obfuscate the source code.
In case you did not know, Facetime is based on open standards. I don't know how else to tell you that. See, e.g.(with the usual WP caveats), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.
I actually read what you wrote.
Again the question is, why not make it open before getting everyone's hopes up? If you don't promise anything than no one will expect it. Apple needs to do a better job with expectations as it relates to openness and standards. Making something open goes a long way in making it a standard.
Comments
I?ll try to use small words.
Yesterday: Skype wasn?t bought by MS yet it wasn?t deemed a killer of FaceTime on iDevices.
Today: Skype is bought by MS and you claim it?s now going to kill FaceTime on iDevices.
Yesterday: FaceTime was tied outside Apple?s ecosystem with the promise of it being made open.
Today: FaceTime is tied to Apple?s ecosystem but because MS bought Skyep you deem it impossible to be made open.
No matter you slice it FaceTime is still the same tool with the same limitations and same potential that it had yesterday.
Good one.
This deal is about selling ads, not adding "features" to Windows. They bought 107 million users per month, along with a fairly useful service that should help keep those users sticking around. Integrate Skype as a standard feature in Windows computers and Nokia phones, and you should be able to add even more users. It may not make Skype the industry standard, but it should make it as easy and accessible as Facetime on an Apple product -- except with a real, revenue-producing user base and true cross-platform compatibility.
Microsoft wants "eyes" from any platform possible, so it seems ridiculous to suggest that they will kill cross-platform compatibility. They may even have the resources to push out Skype for iPad, which one would think should have been out on launch day.
Apple makes money selling hardware. Unless they sell a revolutionary $150 aluminum USB ultra-HD+ magical proprietary camera, why would Apple open Facetime to other devices and platforms? They've never made iTunes open to other audio/video devices, and iTunes actually has separate revenue potential from iTunes store sales.
Hmmm. . . I don't think your original question was quite as clear as you apparently think it was. I didn't (and don't) read it the way you claim to have intended. So we're simply arguing semantics I guess. Nothing more to discuss on that subject then.
I did try to explain why the purchaser makes a difference. That might not have been as clear as I intended either since you didn't get it.
I understood Apple's original plan was expecting FaceTime to become the industry standard. Apple would have had much more influence with FaceTime over an independent Skype who had an interesting product but limited sesources to continue development quickly and effectively. Now with MS in the mix, Skype rolled into the OS itself in all likelihood and pre-installed on every Win7 (and Win8
There's your difference. Apple users will still have FaceTime to play with amongst themselves. Unless they have a Windows version ready to roll, I don't see any chance of it being considered a serious application going forward, even by many Apple fans.
Stop.
You're beating a dead horse at this point.
I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.
It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.
Actually, it's much worse (or better, if you were Silverlake). I think eBay dumped Skype for either $1.2B or $1.4B, way less than they paid for it. Took a huge write-off too.
This deal is about selling ads, not adding "features" to Windows...
Good observation. That's Facebook's plan too (after all, they're not making much from their users either).
However, there's only so many fixed ad dollars to go around, and whatever these guys grab will come from Google, since the ad pot is not growing much larger (or growing very slowly, if at all).
So, on balance, this is good news for (non-ad-dependent) Apple.
I?ll try to use small words.
Yesterday: Skype wasn?t bought by MS yet it wasn?t deemed a killer of FaceTime on iDevices.
Today: Skype is bought by MS and you claim it?s now going to kill FaceTime on iDevices.
Yesterday: FaceTime was tied outside Apple?s ecosystem with the promise of it being made open.
Today: FaceTime is tied to Apple?s ecosystem but because MS bought Skyep you deem it impossible to be made open.
No matter you slice it FaceTime is still the same tool with the same limitations and same potential that it had yesterday.
"You are coming to a sad realization: cancel or allow?"
"...allow."
How long before we see that "blue screen of death" on our Skype App?
that was added before the MS deal, skype 5 it was called.
HTTP, tcp/ip, MP3, MP4 are examples of standards.
Here
Stop.
You're beating a dead horse at this point.
Yeah, beaten and well on it's way to integration with my next jello treat.
Editors, and I use the term loosely, why is Facetime called a standard when no one but apple uses it? it is no more a standard than Memory Stick or a-trac, or Apple Lossless codecs...it works on one vendors products, and only their products, it is their platform, not a standard. Skype is also not a standard, only Skype clients work with it IIRC.
HTTP, tcp/ip, MP3, MP4 are examples of standards.
SJ said Apple was going to work to make it open, and work with organizations that create standards.
Facetime is is less than a year old at this point (compared to the 7 or 8 years that Skype has been around), so perhaps you need to be a little patient.
SJ said Apple was going to work to make it open, and work with organizations that create standards.
Facetime is is less than a year old at this point (compared to the 7 or 8 years that Skype has been around), so perhaps you need to be a little patient.
Why not make it open first and then announce that it is open?
It could also be the reverse.
Facebook was looking for a video component, if MS manages to force them onto Skype then FaceTime is in trouble. If Facebook on the other hand started using FaceTime, Skype would quickly become a seniors-only Windows-only affair.
Also, Apple hasn't released anything for non-Apple platforms, but they indicated they were going to. If there is a FaceTime for Windows then the battle is truly on and I like FaceTime's chances.
I so want Apple to release FaceTime for Windows.
My fiancee lives over 200KMs away and every night we are on Skype. The problem is that Skype is just such a poor service with communication problems regularly.
At one stage we were getting cut off every five minutes and ended up using GTalk which was not much better.
Things got a bit better when I hooked my Airport Extreme to dad's but it still drops connection inexplicably. And that's just with voice, it's immensely worse with video.
Why not make it open first and then announce that it is open?
In case you did not know, Facetime is based on open standards. I don't know how else to tell you that. See, e.g.(with the usual WP caveats), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.
In case you did not know, Facetime is based on open standards. I don't know how else to tell you that. See, e.g.(with the usual WP caveats), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.
Did you guys read the Wired article yet? They don't seem to think too much of Skype's benefit to MS.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/...-buys-skype-2/
Reading the following makes me think MS will be in a Senate hearing soon too, regarding Skype!
http://www.blackhat.com/presentation...-biondi-up.pdf
I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.
It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.
Actually, it's much worse (or better, if you were Silverlake). I think eBay dumped Skype for either $1.2B or $1.4B, way less than they paid for it. Took a huge write-off too.
Sevenfeet was right: eBay did sell Skype for $2.75B (not $1.2B or $1.4B as I had suggested).
1.OSX and iOS versions of Skype don´t get updated for 3 years.
2. Apple goofs up again (aka. iWorks) and doesn´t make a Windows version of Facetime.
3. A third party app comes and grabs the market.
Reading the following makes me think MS will be in a Senate hearing soon too, regarding Skype!
http://www.blackhat.com/presentation...-biondi-up.pdf
After reading that document it looks like Skype should fit in nicely with Windows. It has been speculated that the original programmers of the Windows source code, who have since left the company, did so without actually explaining or documenting large parts of the low level functions and now no one at Microsoft actually understands exactly how it works. Looks like Skype may have the same problem, especially if key people leave during the transition. They certainly went to great lengths to obfuscate the source code.
In case you did not know, Facetime is based on open standards. I don't know how else to tell you that. See, e.g.(with the usual WP caveats), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.
I actually read what you wrote.
Again the question is, why not make it open before getting everyone's hopes up? If you don't promise anything than no one will expect it. Apple needs to do a better job with expectations as it relates to openness and standards. Making something open goes a long way in making it a standard.