Microsoft confirms $8.5B acquisition of communications service Skype

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 174
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quaternio View Post


    They are planning to pay in cash?! Why not just use a check?



    Actually Skype owners are getting paid with X Box Live points.
  • Reply 122 of 174
    yvo84yvo84 Posts: 84member
    sky.net
  • Reply 123 of 174
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    This deal goes a long way in showing what a fool balmer is.





    IT defies words. you can't even defend how stupid he was. It's so stupid on so many levels it is going to redefine the word ballmer as a term to convey the utmost depths of moronic waste of resources.



    WTF was he thinking and why didn't anyone stop him? I mean holy fucking shit.
  • Reply 124 of 174
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    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.



    I think you're confusing two things here.



    Apple never said they were going to make it open source, they said it was going to be an open standard. The two are not necessarily interchangeable.



    For it to become an open standard it actually has to go out of Apple's hands to a 3rd party standards board.



    The fact that Apple hasn't released it yet isn't necessarily Apple's fault but the fault of the standards board that is to ratify the standard.
  • Reply 125 of 174
    Yet another example of Microsoft innovation - getting the Microsoft name and logo on an innovative product developed by someone else.



    Bill Gates must be in a state of 'shock and awe' because of Steve Ballmer's inability to understand why the design and painstaking construction of a coherent hardware and software platform are essential to the success of really innovative companies like Apple.



    In my opinion, what Microsoft is doing is buying companies with already successful products, like Skype, to add their already highly fragmented product portfolio, whereas Apple tends to buy companies with potentially successful technologies that can drive the development of innovative products on the Apple hardware/software platforms.
  • Reply 126 of 174
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    .... is Steve Jobs drove the price up in a bidding war and then ducked out when it hit 8.5B, insuring MS over spent by 5B, laughed to himself as he was never even interested in Skype, beat his dog, went to bed and slept like a baby.
  • Reply 127 of 174
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don’t see how you can claim FaceTime can’t ever be made open source, can’t ever become popular outside of Apple’s ecosystem, will somehow be killed on iDevices



    You can't see how because I didn't say any of that. I'll quote myself...
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    it's less likely that FaceTime will......become the defacto standard across all platforms in chat



    FaceTime can still become an open source project that's used on other platforms and nothing at all has changed for FaceTime on Apple devices.
  • Reply 128 of 174
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Personally, I don't understand when people say that FaceTime was going to dominate chat. Sure it was cool when released and has the potential to be an open standard, expanded upon, etc.



    But the four challenges are:

    (1a) there's no text chat, it's purely video right now

    (1b) doesn't do all the smilies and image embedding, etc that younger people seem to love

    (1c) not even integrated with iChat in any way

    (2) there's no audio-only calling (not that I could easily find)

    (3) doesn't work over 3G

    (4) one can't call mobile or landlines



    .........................................



    That said, this is colossal idiocy by Microsoft/Ballmer. Aside from the ridiculous price paid... Integrating Skype into Xbox, Kinect, WP7, Windows, plus remember, making Skype fully interoperable with Messenger, is a daunting task. They'll also have to spend loads on marketing by first juggling the two brands then eventually dropping one of them or merging it ("Skype Messenger"?).



    What next, another few billion for WP7 on tablet and ARM? A few more billion for taking on Google in ads, search and mapping?



    The only thing keeping Microsoft from falling apart at this stage is Xbox, and the fact that people still stupidly email Word and Excel documents back and forth for everything because they don't know any better. Additionally, to this date crappy looking PowerPoint is pretty much just what people know when it comes to presentations. Plus there is no real alternative to the Windows ecosystem where massive numbers of people and companies thrive on it being broken and corrupt.
  • Reply 129 of 174
    sippincidersippincider Posts: 410member
    From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...icrosoft_skype



    Quote:

    Skype has lost money consistently since its inception in 2003, mostly because it charges only a small fraction of its users. As a standalone company, Skype lost $7 million on revenue of $860 million last year.



    That did not deter Microsoft. "We are a super-ambitious company," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said. "This Skype acquisition is entirely consistent with our irrepressible, forward-looking nature."



    Even I underestimated Ballmer's lack of intelligence. This guy isn't qualified to manage a gumball machine.
  • Reply 130 of 174
    sippincidersippincider Posts: 410member




    Steve Ballmer, searching for his next acquisition...
  • Reply 131 of 174
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    I think you're confusing two things here.



    Apple never said they were going to make it open source, they said it was going to be an open standard. The two are not necessarily interchangeable.



    For it to become an open standard it actually has to go out of Apple's hands to a 3rd party standards board.



    The fact that Apple hasn't released it yet isn't necessarily Apple's fault but the fault of the standards board that is to ratify the standard.



    I got that hence my last sentence that being open goes a long way in making it a standard.
  • Reply 132 of 174
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 238member
    I wonder how many of the 8.8 million paying skype users will cancel their subscriptions with this news lol
  • Reply 133 of 174
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 238member
    Well if it helps M$ sink faster so Apple can come in and buy them out and have the pleasure of firing everyone but the MacBU then I'll all for it!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRR View Post


    This deal goes a long way in showing what a fool balmer is.





    IT defies words. you can't even defend how stupid he was. It's so stupid on so many levels it is going to redefine the word ballmer as a term to convey the utmost depths of moronic waste of resources.



    WTF was he thinking and why didn't anyone stop him? I mean holy fucking shit.



  • Reply 134 of 174
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post


    Well if it helps M$ sink faster so Apple can come in and buy them out and have the pleasure of firing everyone but the MacBU then I'll all for it!



    but when the 8.5 was just a rumor in the other thread people tried to frame it like it was a proper valuation based on getting skype subscribers. HAHA..



    what kind of brain drain do you need to fall susceptible to just to think that was the value of skype users? it's not monopoly money.



    All this does is help wipe out MSFT cash holdings with zero ROI. I'll venture to say they will never make anywhere near a small percentage of 8.5B for the duration of MSFTs existence. Mark my words, one day in the future this will be one of the main reasons for ballmer's fall if not MSFTs fall.
  • Reply 135 of 174
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    I think the author has an interesting definition of "great success". Certainly different than mine.







    I suspect Apple is dragging it's feet on pushing Facetime outside of it's own platform because there are some upcoming changes...like folding it into the iCloud services (along with MobileMe syncing, Ping, iDisk, etc). I don't see Facebook using FaceTime, which as I understand it still requires Apple's servers to make the connections. The "open standard" Apple was promising was only for the client software. I think it's unlikely that Facebook would use someone else's service like that. They make something home grown, first.



    And why would Apple work with Facebook when they likely have bigger plans. Like REPLACING Facebook. They have many of the pieces of Skype, Facebook, and Google, so can they integrate them all together?



    AGREED

    Also Apple doesn't have a 8 billion expense to justify when trying to suck profit from a company that does not make money .



    8,000,000,000,000.>> trillion dimes looks look this

    80,000,000,000,000.00 >>> 80 trillion pennies looks like this .

    Skype if they charge a dime for a call has to sell a lot of calls to break even .

    OR are they selling advertising ??





    9
  • Reply 136 of 174
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    : exit edit
  • Reply 137 of 174
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    I I suspect Apple is dragging it's feet on pushing Facetime outside of it's own platform because there are some upcoming changes...like folding it into the iCloud services (along with MobileMe syncing, Ping, iDisk, etc).



    That seems quite possible with as long as we?ve heard about this data center and what we know about how FaceTime works. We can?t rule out Apple submitting FaceTime just to get back a bunch of negative feedback as to why it won?t work as designed.



    How do you make it secure if you have all FaceTime-compatible devices opening making direct connections to other devices that have to keep their location data updated on a server. You can?t have all that be sent to any and all servers that want to create a FaceTime backend because it?s open. You?d have to end up with a separate secure network (I.e.: Apple?s own devices only) or create a network that all your devices talk to and then let other major companies create their own which then connect to their devices (I.e.: telcos).



    I don?t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Jobs was simply on stage lying when it does no good to keep video conferencing as fractured as it?s been since its inception. At least with FaceTime the codecs, containers and network protocols are all well known and either open or freely licensable. Can?t say that about Skype?s proprietary protocols.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    AGREED

    Also Apple doesn't have a 8 billion expense to justify when trying to suck profit from a company that does not make money.



    That?s a huge expense for what I consider a minor puzzle piece. I look forward to hearing how MS spins it in their next earnings call, as well as to reading articles about this will be a financially beneficial in the long term.
  • Reply 138 of 174
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    You can't see how because I didn't say any of that. I'll quote myself...



    FaceTime can still become an open source project that's used on other platforms and nothing at all has changed for FaceTime on Apple devices.



    And I?m saying that likelihood hasn?t been altered nor that Skype is now a ?FaceTime killer? simply because it jumped from one rubber less vessel to another.
  • Reply 139 of 174
    successsuccess Posts: 1,040member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Unless Facetime is ported to Android too, it will never have a chance of becoming a "standard". You really think Apple will do that?



    I don't think SJ is interested in making FaceTime a 'standard'. He wants the best communication experience on the iPad/iPhone/Mac and this is FaceTime. Simply being on the world's top selling mobile devices and future AirMacs + desktops will make it the de facto standard by default.
  • Reply 140 of 174
    nicolbolasnicolbolas Posts: 254member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    AGREED

    Also Apple doesn't have a 8 billion expense to justify when trying to suck profit from a company that does not make money .



    er, if from what i have read, skype has aprox 5% users paying, with what 860 million $ made-- losing 7 million overall... (aprox 10% of install base = 86 million dollars made) you only need an install base increase of... 1%! to get more than 7 million dollars (8.6 million)



    I have no doubt that is possible.



    ofc the whole 8.5 billion dollars.... WTF..... this part isn't worth it.



    Also to note the whole Skype killing Facetime...



    no one ever (on this forums at least, i don't use others) had a topic that i REMEMBER that disussed Skype that much.....



    once i personally think about it, Facetime, as it currently is cannot compete with Skype...

    no chat

    no voice to voice

    etc (other people have longer lists)



    Also i feel that even a release now, wouldn't go anywhere (ever with most of the lacking areas solved, which wouldn't make sense (As i see it) based off its design of Video) due to limited things you can call... like not "regular" phones.....



    I can see this personally: i have an iphone 4 (and an itouch, 4G) both of them are used a lot, but i have never found a use for Facetime.... i can't just lay down and chat Voice to Voice, or use one hand to send messages (im) when i am busy doing something else.



    Facetime is GREAT for video, but in order to compete with Skype (I believe it should focus PURELY on video, eventually adding in multi person video that costs $) it would need an overhaul.
Sign In or Register to comment.