Over the weekend  Andy Abramson received his new iPod Touch 4 in the mail. Apple’s New iPod touch Part One-VoIP on the iPod – VoIP Watch. What he’s yet to reveal is his experience with FaceTime – Apple’s new video call solution which I’ve written a series of posts on. We had our FaceTime call yesterday and I learned a few things.

1. iPhone 4 Upgrades Required: I had to upgrade my iPhone4 to iOS4.1 to enable FaceTime calls with the new iPodTouch4. When Andy tried to connect with me he received a message that I hadn’t yet upgraded to 4.1. Upgrading came at some cost to me. Loss of my jailbreak and SIM unlock, use of my iPhone4 as a hotspot using MiFi and FaceTime calls over 3G using My3G. Still, the incentive remains for the jailbreak community and I expect a new solution before long. An iPod Touch user needs an iPhone4 user’s phone number to currently contact them.
2. Email not Phone Numbers: As we knew the iPod Touch comes without a phone number.  And you can add multiple emails. See picture below. Right now this same functionality is not available in the iPhone4. Although you can add email ID’s to Game center so I imagine they will merge in time. This article explains in more detail. This highlights the need for a basic presence system and further ID management. Eg which profiles do I want to make available and to whom? This is the future for CallerID. It’s also the step necessary to make FaceTime available on almost any device; there are already plenty of rumors that it will overlay iChat and come to Windows etc.

3. Access Manager Future: FaceTime become more useful when “email-numbers” come to the iPhone4 . Emails equate to different profiles and Apple just becomes your identity manager for escalating conversations. Location-based escalations will take on new meaning. Here Apple’s been really smart – they’ve borrowed both email and phone numbers and without adding another ID layer are simply moving towards offering an “access management” solution for any profile. I’m waiting for “myprofilemanager”.
4. ADD SMS to the iPod: I added and experimented with an SMS app on my iPhone4. “TextFree” (and others) provides you with another number to receive SMS’s on. So the quickest free way to give your new iPod Touch a phone number (SMS only) is adopt one of these APPs. Free unlimited Text in the US etc. Probably not perfect although my quick tests suggested it worked quite well. TextFree supports notifications – so all you need is your iPod Touch in a WiFi zone. Or as Andy noted in our conversation… Just use your iPod Touch with a MiFi mobile hotspot and do all your FaceTime and texting for free over 3G. That’s the future and it’s one where the carrier has zero control over your number, minutes or even SMS.
5. What next? There are many opportunities. Eg auto create a contact list of FaceTime users. Add some “available indicator”. Create a parallel SMS channel (it’s already there – Apple’s notification server” we just don’t see it like that. Add in FaceTime notifications to the messaging stream and make that more manageable!.

The rollout of FaceTime is currently the most interesting and aggressive VoIP project anywhere. FaceTime is “Apple’s Startup”. Later next year, expect profiles and developer opportunities re CallerID’s while your “dating site” etc works in the background. This will mean a change to notifications. Notifications will add in Call options – it will become the communications manager. While Apple didn’t get Facebook to sync with their new GameCenter. I’m sure it will come. In fact FaceTime may also revolutionize the “mobile news” stealing Skype’s thunder when integrated with Twitter. If I was Apple I’d be working on both of these. When @stuarthenshall becomes +stuarthenshall I accept or decline a FaceTime call. Or *stuarthenshall for an “unlisted” call request via Twitter. New API’s will make this type of thing simple.

This story isn’t all told yet – more random thoughts:
The iPod Touch is becoming the “multi-faceted phone”. In some experiments people have put the same email account into two iPod touches. Like Skype, both ring and only one can be answered. I wrote about why that sort of thing was brilliant when Skype launched vs IM clients that always logged you out. This capability will only become even more interesting. So we’re moving towards a point where, when FaceTime rings your mobile, it will also ring your desktop, iPad, iPod etc. Any device you want. Finally we are “names” not numbers!

The iPodTouch4 as the home phone or even a work phone becomes better and better. (See my post FaceTime and the Enterprise). You can already turn your GoogleVoice account into a home number (for free). You can also use TextFree or the equivalent for free SMS calls. Note Calls to your TextFree number result in a notification and the number that called. Add Skype too. Let all this stuff run in the background and keep it in a dock! Otherwise the battery may not last very long. All you need is WiFi and you can route anything to it. Thus the MiFi hotspot challenge for the carriers and cable providers. When wifi anywhere is good enough the user takes control.

Where Facetime may shine is when AirPlay emerges if it works to stream FaceTime over AppleTV. Will that be in the iOS4.2 announcement?

Summary:
When Apple made your mobile phone number into ‘FaceTime’, it created its own value stream out of the carriers’ most important asset. Now Apple is offering to enable your email accounts to do the same thing. Next they let developers do it for any social networking site and connect them up to FaceTime. On the behavioral side – this puts Skype and GTalkVideo into a mobile format where they simply aren’t today. Mobile video calling even limited to WiFi beats the desktop for all short Video sessions. FaceTime is from a consumer perspective “cross platform” with only one device required to manage multiple identities.

In October 2007 I wrote Why VoIP Innovation Died with Skype In it I wrote: “Skype has four possible plays which it failed to capitalize on 1)Directory, 2)SIP & Identity, 3)API 4)Presence” Apple has all these elements in play. Apple will remain the facilitator if they expect to be really successful. Apple’s prize is all the social networks and directories coming to FaceTime first. Match, Craigslist etc. Few guesses Apple will first open it to developers and then open it more broadly to Android, Nokia etc. WHY? Because “call” and “video” interruptions are the most intrusive and valuable escalations that happen on a mobile. When Apple knows I call a car dealer Apple has the ad engine capability to make real money. Add in location. Many variations are possible. FaceTime needs to go everywhere and infect every handset and desktop. Most importantly…. Apple has no urgency on monetizing this direction. It’s not IM and it’s not a phone number. Today it’s just the evolutionary step that is next.

I wrote other clues too. “Communications is Fragmenting. Oct 2008. I see FaceTime following that brief. I also wrote “Blogging Lifestreams and My Personal Cloud” Jan 2010 where I made reference to “Unlike yesterday… conversations that matter lie outside your buddylist or following list.”  F2F hasn’t died and FaceTime is likely to bring it closer and to a geo-location near you. Add in Qik like broadcast capabilities or watching games in action and it could go a whole lot further.

GIPS sells out to Google! Congrats to my friends at GIPS and to Andy and the Comunicano team for he’s been part of a successful exit yet again. What will Google do with it? We don’t know yet. Will it be embedded into Android? What’s the impact re video? What will be the impact on their customers? All interesting questions and deserving of conversation whether at Skype, Google, or Cisco a customer etc.

However, while there is plenty of “clapping” I’ll admit I had another thought. When a company sells out it is game over. In the tech industry often investors can get their money out or is that back. Still this aspect wasn’t my central reflection. You see my first experience and knowledge of Gips happened when Skype first launched. I wanted to know what made Skype “sound” so good. Gips was in the news. Wide-band audio was in the news. A little digging and you could learn many things about “speech” and “jitter” and “buffers” and how tough it was to make those conversations crystal clear.

Skype’s success made GIPS visible to the world. GIPS was integral to Skype’s crystal clear sound – as if you were there.  Yet Gips the company never sold out for billions. They were never really full partners with Skype. Their licensing model was extended to many other wannabe clients over time while Skype moved on buying and then further developing their own codec which more recently they open sourced.

The people at Gips should be proud. They pioneered and helped to change the world of communications. Yet I can’t help thinking that “strategically” they had a bigger and better option back in 2003. Why was it impossible for them to envision being “Skype”? Or later why weren’t they bought out by Skype? We know it’s hard to “see” audio and it’s taken almost 10 years for HD to get traction. With Google and Android it will now come to mobile and tip over the next few years. Google we presume is also getting a world class engineering team as part of the deal. Again we live in hope that real-advancements might be made. Examples “open channels – always-on”, spacial and positioning sound, put the Q or quality back into music – hi fidelity. It would be nice if Google became more than just talk or voice.

Note: What Skype did was P2P (infrastructure cost saving) and broke through firewalls. This is a different engineering problem to what GIPS was trying to solve. No doubt Skype was a plausible partner at the time. Yet Gips was the bigger company in early 2003.

For the first time in a long while it almost appears Skype is on a trajectory to really change the world. It took Apple rather than Skype to figure it out. While Apple dragged their feet on early VoIP apps running in the background they built up a user base that can potentially carry Skype or a competitor anywhere.

Apple has sold 50 million iPhone’s so far. As I look now at my Skype client there are currently 19.5 million online. I’m sure it was higher earlier today. Now imagine a world not six years out but six months out. 30 million 3GS users upgrade to iPhone 4.0 the operating system that is coming later this year that enables background Skype.  In the next year there’s a good chance that the next generation iPhone will sell another 50 million. Skype’s supposed to work over 3G too. So we’re not years away from a time when 100 million people can run Skype at all times on their mobile.  The real impact of Iphone 4.0 is it will almost instantly double the number of Skype Users online. International and un-minuted calls will remain the biggest driver.

So where does this leave telecom? Or you personally? What action would you / should you take before you agree your next contract and lock-in with ATT?  In fact – how will ATT want to screw you? Will data prices go up? What is the implications for the fee structure? With background apps and $30/mth 3G my iPad may become cheaper than the Phone to carry around although too big for my pocket. (Will we ever see a Touch with the same deal?) And what should I do when all I want is a phone that is not locked to AT&T.

Where does this leave Skype’s competitors? What should the competitors be doing prior to the iPhone 4.0 launch. Skype is not alone here. I doubt that there is one iPhone with Skype on it  – that doesn’t have Facebook. Facebook is a better profile and directory service. It is a better status system. It is better re friends etc. Will users ever see it as a place to make or initiate calls from? Facebook enables free calling to all members…

Then many iPhone users are also LinkedIn users given that business skew. What should LinkedIn do about Telephony? Or not? This also leaves Apple’s evil friend Google unmentioned. Where does GoogleVoice fit in all of this? Obviously no problem running a Gizmo client on the iPhone. Then there is Yahoo. Have you used the Yahoo client on the iPhone? The messaging and notification features are good, could it be upgraded? Is there a battle brewing here between the “name” and the “number”? What opportunities re “flow” and the social networking services exist?

Then there are programmatic ways that VoIP could become more interesting. Eg which apps will open Skype or another VoIP app. Is it possible for an app to request or check that you have a VoIP client running in the background and simply piggyback on it. Eg.. it is a channel and the app manages the exchange. That maintains my gaming profile while using any VoIP line I have available. From the little that was said I doubt anything other than a naked Skype will run concurrently with an app.

This also leaves open an important area. Skype chat in the background would be great. However I will probably want some “group” management on who can ring. (They are half way there). There’s actually no reason why I can’t also run GoogleVoice via Gizmo or a SIP client concurrently in the background. In other words there are many ways for me to add channels. In fact working on VoIP for iPhone with an agnostic approach and choose your identity would be just awesome. Think I have it half done in my mind already.

I’m thinking I just need an app for that. When my Game calls I want the gaming profile, when the date calls I want my dating profile, when the recruiter calls I want my linked in profile. All these services benefit when voice is just part of the escalation. There’s a need in each case to provide a chat/text element. Context is important. It may be all that is required. Still those chat elements are better served when they relate to appropriate “profile(s)” for the exchange. There are plenty of multi-account chat clients already available on the iPhone. Can they master the voice element effectively and join the field?

Unfortunately this means… VoIP on the iPhone is really just a dumb pipe. What’s important is the CallerID. Rich CallerID’s will get you more. Unless I know you.. your Skype name is useless to me. You profile may help although without context you get a block, or ignore etc. By contrast a Facebook call request from a friend of a friend with some context or equally a Twitter talk request (remember Phweet anyone!) may be a better way to complete that call. Similarly, if you are a business and I want a reservation by OpenTable. I put in a request. How should you present that call back to me?  Equally I have a problem with Comcast. How should that Tweet be presented? If I’ve had nothing and been on the line for 20 minutes with my health care provider…. In fact for all those services. Ask yourself if you are willing to add to your account details.. my preferred callerID. Should that co be a Facebook Fan like page… or a TwitterID or something else? I could add all the details and implications for location based VoIP too. “BluetoothBarRoulette” anyone?

While we are on this. Better ask you? What will that caller ID do? When that Skype call comes in. Can I touch it and reveal a profile, touch again and see status updates, touch again to see my call history with you? If Skype can’t do it. Will Google? The service that wins will bring in public and private call records and exchanges. The apps need a gesture approach. All to date are far too static. The iPad will be a useful partner for testing and developing these types of solutions concurrently. An iPad may be the cheapest distributed call center app ever in a few months.

In the end I may keep Skype around in the background just for the neat multi-chats. It may look like it is game over for everyone else when Steve demo’s Skype on the iPhone. I think it is far from over.

I doubt the operators can act fast enough to address the opportunity. If you were AT&T what would you do? To me that is obvious and I mentioned it in passing above. If you are T-Mobile what would you do? Why not create an app for the iPhone and route “free unlimited calling to ATT iPhone users” into all your plans. Good acquisition strategy for them.

I think AT&T will launch a new flat-rate unlimited use plan with the next iPhone. I suspect it will cost more. That rolling over on a contract may not be ah..appetizing. However, it becomes interesting when AT&T gets an exclusive for another 12 months. If they cut their rates – $50 unlimited everything in network and PSTN  then they would clean up. That is also highly unlikely.

Just tweeted that the Skype integration with LG and Panasonic TV’s raises some interesting usability questions and options. LG, Panasonic to Add Skype to TVs – WSJ.com. On further reflection this may be the rise of ‘slob view cam’.

Skype Technologies SA has partnered with LG Electronics Inc. and Panasonic Corp., saying the companies will begin producing televisions with its technology embedded in them, allowing users to make video calls over the Internet without a personal computer.

Skype to Be Integrated Into TVs From Panasonic and LG

People who buy these TVs, along with an extra Web camera and microphone accessory designed for the living room, can conduct free, live video chats and phone calls from the couch.

Yeah… well so what? First almost no one will buy a new TV to bring Skype into the living room. Have you even tried a browser on some of the newer Internet enabled TV’s? So just a few questions.

Always-on?
Is Skype and thus the TV always-on? What’s the screen saver? What are the power implications? If it isn’t always on… how or why other than the big video size is this better? (BTW… I can do this today with the PC and web cam hooked up to my TV although I have to run a PC.)

Watching and Talking?
What are the implications for in-screen viewing or simultaneous calls? How is voice handled? Now if we can watch together or I can watch your TV with you… then just like screen sharing we have something more interesting. That isn’t going to be available at this time… otherwise it would be in the Skype Announcement via SkypeJournal. What happens when in a conference call? Is the screen blank? What is the video deal then? Can I watch TV and laugh on mute while ostensible being signed into the call?

Slingbox anyone? Video Recording?
Unless you can get your TV feed easily into Skype so it can become an instant Slingbox (or I can find a hack to the linux code and do some patch-stick update like on the AppleTV) this initiative doesn’t take Skype much further. What happens when a call comes in? Is TV paused? Where is the DVR? Will the skype integration support a USB disk as a recorder? These are just a couple of things that would take this implementation further.

Cam Features?
I wrote about all the choice and usability issues that relate to using a RTX DualPhone 3088 the other day.  Frankly they will be similar with this execution. There is also no way you are going to holding a chat via the TV remote. Yes we sit in a couch and watch TV. Yes we also take phone calls there. However, the slob view cam picture could be really scary. Will the cam have a zoom? Will there be controls on the cam to make angles work or will i have to be directly in front of the TV?

Multi-Client Integration?
Skype can ring multiple iterations of my SKype name at the same time. Can I take the video on my TV and the call on my iPhone? Why not? Why can’t you give me an HDMI box that will take my skype name and use an old webcam and let me “project” and even better capture video from the TV?

Conclusions:
Slob cam won’t be a big hit. There may be another market for SkypeClients in a box that you can use with your TV. EG Skype to HDMI. These may even have a separate handset and get you the video. This would be an RTX upgrade appraoch.

I just don’t see Skype on TV as any form of innovative mojo. Skype once was a brand that changed the playing field. It seems they only wanted to try and do it once. If you would give me Skype Video on my iPhone then… I could autodial my PC with integrated TV tuner. (set it to auto screenshare too…).. Many years ago Jan 2005 I blogged about iPodRadio. There may still be some audio codec issues with this type of sharing and quality. The thing is… putting Skype on TV screens is not creating a new market. There are markets still out there to be created. Just like Podcasting and Skypecasting which effectively pioneered Skype for CNN. Those solutions were created here on this blog!

Who wants to Skype without a computer? Is Skype relevant or more relevant when the computer is no longer required? Two use cases really show how Skype usage is changing. One on mobiles like the iPhone Skype app (which fails the always on test) and then there is the traditional handset.

Over years of testing Skype and discussions with many people one concludes that usage occasions define the type of headset, handhold, speakerphone etc that we want to use when Skypeing / talking. So this is a post about the RTX DualPhone 3088, who I think it is for, where it fits in the Skypeosphere, and a few reasons to buy it. Yes I did get it along with a few other goodies from the ISS team who supply products to the Skype store.  So upfront I didn’t buy it although am considering buying one for my father. It’s worth writing up and discussing as it affect behavior and how perhaps we manage calls in the future.

What is a RTX Cordless DualPhone 3088?
Most importantly the RTX DualPhone 3088 is a Skype phone that doesn’t require you to have a computer on. Skype is embedded in the small basestation which plugs into your router. (more on product innovation later). More importantly, the phone doesn’t have to be anywhere near the basestation. It comes with its own charging unit and can sit in your kitchen or where ever you might want to have a phone convenient. For the most part it acts and operates like any cordless phone. You can also connect the base station to a traditional landline so the phone becomes a 2in1.

Setup was easy and I ignored the instructions. The handset has a wonderful color display. As a SkypePhone it works just fine. It also works as a basic / okay speakerphone. If you have a big buddylist on Skype then you may be a little annoyed at the 200 limit the phone imposes. I don’t know it it resynchs with the online contacts on each reconnect occurrence. It does mean that you may not find a contact that you know you have on the list. For those with the 200 buddies contacts are searchable and thus usually a letter will just find the one you want. That said I’m not sure the target for this phone is people that have 200+ buddies on Skype.

What else? It’s a handset. So it is not for messaging and there is no messaging functionality. And the keys really aren’t designed for texting. It also won’t set up conference calls etc. It will run concurrently with a Skype account on your desktop. So two or more endpoints can ring. So accept it for what it is. A cleanly styled phone although the charging dock is a little large. It wasn’t clear from the instruction book if you can add other units / extensions. Perhaps. However, that may also not be necessary. One possible way to look at this phone is as an “always on extension” for your laptop / PC. Plus keep it out of the office. The downside of this may or may not be that Skype accounts on PC’s tend to be personal while the home handset is well.. more shared by nature. Which brings us to who’s it for and perhaps even who should buy it?

Who’s the DualPhone for?
I think you purchase it when….

• You want your wife/home to have an always on Skype connection when you travel a lot and they never became really Skype savvy. That also covers the use case where there isn’t an always-on Skype enabled PC.
• Small business perhaps? May make sense to dedicate another account to this phone and call forward your own Skype account (s) to it. This “shared” option could be useful but there’s no way to transfer from the phone to someone else. So don’t expect to make it a PBX.
• You want your parents to be on Skype but they are barely computer literate and again won’t have it on all the time. It’s a good way to keep them connected globally. The device is familiar and the technology disappears.
• You just love Skype to death, and cannot do without a traditional handset for yacking. This may be the best motivation for many, although the motivation to buy this handset is also tied into saving money and cheap calls. We’ll come to cost and investment later.
• You want to make Skype your landline equivalent (no 911) and get an account with SkypeOut and SkypeIn. Now your telephony is based on Skype costs and not the old style costs of the PSTN. The phone would payout in six months for most people. Unfortunately, landline numbers don’t seem to be portable or transferable. A variation on this. You could use Ribbit for your SkypeIn number and get addtional benefits and functionality while also staying in touch with your Skype buddies.

How I’ve used it.
I added my wife’s account to the Dualphone 3800. Then rather than connecting the base station to the PSTN I connected it to my Linksys Papt box (which connects to Gizmo5) which rings my GoogleVoice account which acts as our Home  phone number for traditional people that believe you still need one. GoogleVoice does lots of other neat messaging things too.

Where Was I Disappointed?
It took me awhile to figure out that this isn’t brand new to the market and launched back in 2007. So I’m not reviewing the latest technology or perhaps what I’d really like. More below. I did have an early RTX dualphone which I wrote up years ago. It was a great phone but keeping it synced with software updates from Skype was always a pain. This is a clear advance on that. Yet there are a few things that surprise me today.

• Base stations are obsolete and perhaps not that convenient really. Actually it is sort of ok. Yet I’d expect an updated version to be WiFi enabled. I have no idea why you need to design this to plug into a router today although WiFi inside may complicate or simplify the setup.
• In my experience where the router is.. is not necessarily where the phone lines are (cable dominates). A WiFi enabled rather than wired basestation would enable the charger to plug into the wall and the PSTN line. In the end these are trade-off although it seems to me the cost of the unit could be brought down this way.
• I’d really like to see some messaging innovation. While I doubt I’d do texting on this phone most of my buddylist would text before calling me. That’s context before the call. I might actually appreciate it.. although wouldn’t want it bleeping on each update or perhaps on multi-chats.

Worth the Investment?
You can buy it today from the Skype Store for 169.99. That may be cheap for an “always-on” Skype that doesn’t need a PC yet in broader value terms it feels expensive to me. At $99.99 it might rocket out the door. The lastime I bought handsets for the home I purchased one of those sets with call recorder and that came with extensions and only needed one plugged in. Plenty of handsets everywhere and lots of noise when the phone rang. One standalone and Skype enabled phone doesn’t really replace that type of setup. So investment.

Lot’s of international calling or calling back home when traveling and need that always on handset ringing in the house. It could pay out quickly although rates today are so much cheaper than when Skype launched. The always-on can be created easily by forwarding Skype calls to a landline. You can buy a lot of minutes today for $169.99.

Want to make it pay out? Then use it as the excuse to dump your landline. Adopt SkypeIn or use Ribbit for that landline number. Use SkypeOut minutes and it will pay out real quick. Then again… maybe you love Skype and would just love to have it working without the trouble of using Windows.

I’d love to see Skype follow Brian McConnell’s advice on @gigaom and add an open status updating mechanism.  See my “Skype Will Never Beat Facebook from Jan09 so this isn’t the first time it has been discussed in the Skypeosphere. However, he has to go further and I believe Twitter is equally dangerous and may offer more for Skype to learn from.

A Social Skype adds Skeets to usurp tweets.

• I must be able to export my status updates. (eg RSS), thus have the option to broadcast beyond my buddylist. (Note: even if I decided to move my updates to Skype and then forward to twitter or facebook etc unless I have more discretionary control in a way that is more valuable only a % will do it.)
• I must also be possible to direct a status updates – must relate to groups / lists. Some lists may be public and others semi-private. When updates are available to some friends and not others by the simple action of updating them then I have a simple format for being more directive.
• Status updates must include a geo-location opportunity. In days any discussion of status updates without this feature will be pointless. Geo-Location changes everything. Whether desktop or mobile location data will matter. If Skype adds list like functionality above it would also give Skype another way to say who I want to release this GEO information to.
• The Biggie! Skype must improve the escalation to a call capability. Social networks have reputation associated with them. Contacts isn’t enough. I should be able to see public Skeets.  Skype also doesn’t use a “Call Me” request (adds me as a contact instead). Skype should eliminate the “add as a contact” function and change that to a “call me” request. On acceptance it should ring the other party. Right now there is too much friction for going to calls outside one’s buddylist (most which contrary to phone logic only take calls from buddies). On Skype with a Skeet / Tweet type functionality that goes beyond the buddylist then you need a relatively friction free way to escalate those calls. You also need the reputation or other “filtering” to stop unwanted calls. Spam chat is already a big problem.
• This method also suggests that it should be possible to send @messages or their equivalent. Right now that is dependent on privacy settings. Yet if my @skeets are public then I am more likely to be legitimate than those I get currently along with 1000 others and have to block. So Skype needs to change the privacy capability to enable public chat betwee @skypers. A reputation system will also help that.
• This raises the issue of signals. Right now you get the signal when the Skyper logs back on. That’s why Skype is more broken that telephony. A call is often time specific and in fact many messages are too. Just like we like our twitter @messages to be timely (if you use it regularly) a better signaling system must exist for when I’m offline. Apple’s notification server is a good example of this. In fact if Skype solves that for the iPhone they may well be solving a much broader issue for all users.
• To make this more valuable I also have to have an API so I can manage these interactions from any client I want. Whether I manage it back to my desktop or some other service somewhere. The Twitterverse has proven that Skype’s locked in client development approach is not quick enough, and not appropriate for all people. We are no longer in a one-size fits all world. If Skype wants to win versus other social networks then it must give us more control than they do. The solution is to be both more open and more secure from my perspective as a user.
• So now I can get notifications from Skype and I can feed data into Twitter or otherwise I can respond to Skeets or Tweets on my own terms. The important thing is “notifications” on my mobile.
• Skype then has major advantages over Twitter. Eg a Skeet can escalate to a chat, or multichat or calls or conferences. With location… some chats are persistent… So now I may enter anyzone… as long as I’m in that zone and chat for example. Skype potentially does a better job of this quicker than Twitter can.

While I’m on Skype ranting and wishing they would really be innovative rather than turning out crappy window’s clients I also want these things…

• When I share my desktop I want to retain sharing my video link at the same time.
• I also want multi-party video. I see no technical reason for holding off on this – even if just to make it three way.Three way opens up an area of experimentation that most people have never experienced. Then let one person share another stream at the same time.
• Let me run my Skype client anywhere… on my own server etc. Let me interconnect it with SIP phones etc. Let me use it as my channel management tool.
• Reinforce that doing the above means that names rather than numbers matter. SO let me add a TwitterID and Facebook to my profile, let me decide via lists which profiles I want to expose. But as a culture stop thinking about the world as numbers for that is a blindspot that is abundantly clear. Make a world for me where you and anyone can call me by name! Make that part of your mantra!

BTW Skype and @niklas. I could Twitterize your client and create a mock-up in hours. I think that would be an awesome project. We’d also quickly take it way beyond what is outlined above. I also believe this would “SIMPLIFY” the current client and make it more accessible. As background since you have been out of the business see “Twitter and the Business Model 2009″ or “I am not a number! I am @stuarthenshall a Twittername. Oh and as Skype just exceeded 20m online my view isn’t that different to “Skype and 14m! – No big deal! from 2008.

The I don’t think I’m really prescient although I’ve been following and writing about Skype a long time. I once wrote: A Year Skyping and…. (Unbound Spiral) Sept 14th 2004: Oh dear… suggested to add Twitter like direction in 2004!

However Skype is in the real-time communications business, it’s an always-on company made possible by Skypers. Many Skypers would enable a Skype news feed as a tab in Skype. What may start of as a blog could become a very different community asset overtime.

From Brian McConnell of Gigaom:How Skype Can Quickly and Easily Become a Social Network (and Clean Facebook’s Clock)

Skype already has a great client for real-time communication: a social graph of people its users know and call. It’s available for every major platform, and given Skype’s popularity, there are a large number of people online at any one time. Each Skype client could serve a XML file with the user’s current status, media files, link feeds and so forth, and to obtain a real-time view of what’s happening with other users, it could call around to folks in a user’s Skype list to get the latest updates. Such a system could be highly decentralized, with most content served directly from one user to another, and largely self-hosted, which means the infrastructure costs would be much lower than a centrally run web service.

A true rant never really finishes does it.  Why VoIP Innovation Died with Skype (Unbound Spiral) Oct 1, 2007. Somethings one will always feel deeply about. Skype helped change my world making it completely interconnected and enabling conversations I never could have had otherwise. That’s not the only reason to use it and yet the knowledge still pulls at one’s heart strings. Skype remains more useful and more personal to me on a daily basis than Facebook or Twitter because it provides the escalation to voice conversations and I don’t have to exit the network and jump onto another to have that experience or convenience.

When Skype was sold in 2005 I effectively turned my back on them. More than most I’d put in hours working on my business and theirs. I was effectively an unpaid Skype evangelist before Skype blogs, before people even realized the power of blogs and social media. Social Networks hardly existed at the time. Helping to build a developer community was part of my vision and desire (which many others held and some from then still take part in). Part of the reason Skype reached a successful sale was they were working on a developer eco-system. It was part of a “Skype can power the world of communications” type idea.

Yet Skype never really opened up to developers. We know today it didn’t come to pass. Phil Wolff, Andy Abramson and Om Malik have all weighed in with slightly differing views on the demise of the “Skype Extras” program“. It’s effectively been dead for years. Extras included a certification program. Communications? Even developers only got the same public note this am. Today nobody in their right mind would develop for the SkypeAPI and hope to make money. It’s about trust not selling out!

For a parallel it is useful to think about the Apple store. Potentially the initial “extras” was an “App Store” before Apple invented the App store. In fact Skype had the “file sharing” distribution system too that had real potential. The early developers working on Skype were way ahead of their time.  The vision they had for Skype was not the one of disappointment, missed opportunities, political infighting. Skype never enabled developers to bring their value into  Skype.

Naked Skype anyone? For a parallel of what could have been – think TweetDeck (which I’d say is a potential Skype killer!). In fact a lot of the innovation around Twitter could have been done in Skype years ago. Then again Twitter faces similar issues.

So while we know that Skype missed the “context”, missed the “directory/network” play and is so late to the mobile party it isn’t funny… I wonder what next? Here’s some thoughts to just be provocative.

1. Skype loses the JoltID claim and turns to own solution. Moves more to SIP. Becomes copycat service doing the same thing everyone is doing. Developers of PBX etc. pay $’s to interconnect legacy systems. In 10 years they really aren’t relevant.

2. JoltID breathes sigh of relief. “Jolt” is launched – Skype the way you always wanted it. A secure P2P network is provided to developers. It works on mobile… smart mesh. The business model is location and context rather than minutes. Users provide their own callerID’s etc. It’s all browser based… Mobile Developers can put content in their own exchanges. Exchanges exist only between individuals.

3. Google says – thank you! Wait till they flip the switch!

The question I have.. and not for Skype rather it is for JoltID  is Can I have the “Skype Engine” this time next year? Can I have some funding too… and I bet we can both create a developer community and a product that will eclipse Skype and Twitter before we hit the LTE inflection point.

While I’m being off the wall… Nokia invests in “Jolt” and unleashes a mesh network. Phones are upgraded with software distributed via the mesh…. via villagers walking around. People love their free calling! Kazaa and Skype founders… get the PR…. Mobile operators… ouch.. all over in 3 weeks…

Skype is just a big lost opportunity. As a developer and advocate my heart still hurts as it bleeds. While Skype appears to have more vision than it had it isn’t fast or agile today. The reality is… I don’t know one Skype developer that would put their money or invest in Skype today. That’s going to make it hard for the VC’s to flip this one again.

Not had much time or quiet to complete posts recently. Of course I downloaded Skype for iPhone on the first day! It works with 3.0 installed and I’ve had the time since to play with it. It is very very good. All the reviews have been written so I won’t review them or refer to them further. I have just a couple of points and observations.

Skype for iPhone:

1. Frees me even more from my PC. The key communication service I use on my PC/Mac is now on my Mobile. So no matter how it is integrated or works in the background or not it means I have it. I had a Skype call sitting by my pool today without having to carry the laptop out. I walked around the garden! While there were solutions before that allowed this (eg dualphone, some bluetooth or wireless headsets) there’s nothing quite like using the mobile you are comfortable with. What I’m beginning to need is better battery life. I’m now charging my phone twice per day. NOT good.

2. With the exception of gTalk all my other chat / apps on the iPhone (Nimbuzz, Fring, etc.) are redundent. I also still think of Facebook as merely a directory. The people I call most often are on Skype or I have a number (often in network unlimited minutes). I don’t go to Facebook to make that call in the first place. The killer solution remains at the intersection of identity (the directory), the voice video channel, presence or status, and chat. Skype doesn’t have an effective status system. Twitter does and Facebook sort of. gTalk on the iPhone is web-based and can only be used for chat. It also has no multi-chat. Skype Video on the iPhone would be revolutionary. I still see “context” (reason you want to talk) before the call as a great next step. The problem is signaling when the client is offline. email and SMS can help with that as Phweet has proven. This is even more important when you don’t want breaches of privacy. I must admit I’m itching to build that client.

3. Location will matter. I don’t know what numbers Skype can expect on the iPhone. It’s already in the millions+. I know both my wife and daughter now have it on theirs naturally. Right now they will use it occasionally. They may use SkypeOut more. As it won’t run in the background. The iPhone already means that if Skype wants to compete with the future of communication it must manage location updates. This will make their iPhone and notification service central to where and how Skype and the iPhone develops. Additionally, connecting on the move with people outside your general buddylist without ongoing breaches of privacy is the new challenge. Integrating Skype with Twitter functionality would be an effective step forward.

4. Mobile means more intimacy. I do remember when the stories emerged of people taking their laptops to bed and then yacking away. I’m sure it is still going on. Taking the mobile to bed… so to speak and now Skype with it means chats and connections seemlessly moving to Skype are now even more likely. Skype’s “international” profile makes that even more likely. When more people can make international calls from anywhere at anytime those personal conversations will increase.

5. Telecom operators are in for interesting times. As I am running iPhone 3.0 beta it seems I can make Skype calls over 3G connections.

In the meantime I love having Skype on the iPhone. Although my battery life appears way down when I leave it running. That could also be the 3.0 software I’m running. Not sure at the moment.

I’ve had an interesting email exchange with Michael Robertson this morning as I asked a few questions about his new OpenSky product.  This new Gizmo5 calling service “OpenSky” creates a gateway so anyone can call a Skype contact from any number. As always with Gizmo they have all the routing capabilities from mobile, from web, from a Gizmo5 client etc. It just proves again that everything can be connected.

Gizmo5 – OpenSky Description and how to use:

OpenSky is a free service provided by Gizmo5 which allows any mobile phone, web browser or IP aware phone network (SIP, asterisk, etc) to communicate with Skype users. OpenSky supports sending text messages and voice calls.

So who’s going to use it? Micheal Robertson responds:

The calling world is much bigger than Skype and now they can connect with Skype.

• There are tens of millions of seats for Cisco Call Manager, Avaya and other high end PBX systems which cannot call Skype users and now they can.
• There are tens of millions of seats using low cost Asterisk, Yate, FreeSwitch, Trixbox which cannot call Skype users and now they can.
• There are more than 10 million Nokia Wifi phones which cannot call Skype users and now they can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H49yZGdiqso&feature=channel
• There are millions of SIP ATA devices and wifi phones which cannot call Skype users and now they can.
• 90% of mobile phones do not have a data plan and cannot call a Skype user and now they can. see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZs7N2pBN8&feature=channel

I’m a little less certain about this. While I’ve argued for years that Skype should offer a product that turns my Skype name into a SIP ID so I can use it and other can contact me that way it hasn’t happened. Similarly I can’t call a SIP ID from Skype and that too might be useful. In this illustration I’d pay Skype for the priviledge. I’m also using it to make myself more accessible. I do think some will use this to connect Grand Central or some other service to their Skype account. Why?Not really sure.

In contrast “OpenSky” enables other services to try and call SkypeID’s. It provides a gateway and will connect a SIP capable service with Skype. This is where OpenSky broke down for me. The primary issue  of whether this service will be successful is based on Skype User behavior. I believe the majority are like me. They don’t accept calls from unknown users. They change their Skype preferences to block unknown callers (non buddies) and many women block the chat too.

On my first and second tests before changing my preference I got a chat message: opensky_03:”You are about to receive an OpenSky Voice call from 9257YYXXXX.” The call didn’t go through because of my preferences. OpenSky shared my mobile number too. Just surprised me. Changed preferences and my free call lasted approx 3 minutes. You have to buy a package starting at $20 per year to achieve unlimited calling.

To check my theory I tried to OpenSky 3 other friends. All had their preferences set to block such calls. The question I have is how many calls are likely to go through? I know Michael is already looking at this so they may well find a solution (make it easy for me to add a OpenSky contact) and their own call/connect logs may indeed prove my fear is unfounded.

The funny thing is Skype really started the lowcost free calling revolution. Now costs and other services have come down to such a point that Skype is fighting to stay relevant. The mobile handset has become the major device. While we still have expensive international calls there will be needs for different forms of interconnect. However my experience says the number of contacts a user has in this regard still tends to be a handful rather than a multitude. Calling a Skype user for the most part is calling a PC. Calling a PC is dying. Skype is trying to maintain some relevance with video. I hope their strategy is better than that.

From a consumer perspective Skype already offers “SkypeToGo” which solves my mobile to Skype or cheap international calls problems. From Michael’s comments he’s more interested in the business type opportunities. I can also see him selling a number of his packages to “call centers” who want to sell into Skype. The failure to go through doesn’t matter. They just need Skype names to make the calls. Still that’s a fine balance when every inbound call to the Skype has the ID “OpenSky_##”  One sex line customer could sort of wreck the “prestige” for anyone else. That means to sell to larger customers they will have to offer a custom gateway service.

I’m pleased to see that someone is continuing to promote VoIP solutions. I think too much time is being wasted on interconnecting with Skype. Skype’s a low cost channel. Most of us have more than one channel. Still the real innovation to come is around directories, call signaling, presence, callerID, personal interconnect rules, and context.

Just read Om’s post His view seems similar.

When a friend starts a post with a “you will think I’m nuts …” I know he’s a real buddy of mine. Luca asks today How Can Skype Become The Next Facebook? I’d have to say no way! My reasons are supported by some of the reasons he provides in his post and some of my own beliefs.

What’s really provoked his train of thought is Skype’s botched “status” update. I say botched as on 432 people I’m seeing just a handful of status updates a day (Yeah.. windows doesn’t have it yet etc…). There’s no question that status updates can create conversations (as I saw when I installed the beta along with a group of others). My Twitter Status updates also include automated updates eg bookmarks, blog posts, Calls etc. So for Skype to make them really useful they must open up so you can feed other services or data into their system. Saying update Twitter from Skype isn’t useful if the “mega aggregator of all the status updates you are following is Twitter”.  Skype should have incorporated Twitter. Which could be interesting in itself. The best way to grow sometimes is to infect others. While Phweet has not yet infected the twitter apps… Skype could easily infect Twitter. It could also create a simple Twitter app. So could GoogleTalk. So why should I point out the obvious?

Let’s turn to the Skype profile. As Luca points out it is no Facebook profile. In many ways it is a good simple profile. It’s one up from a number based callerID providing a picture and name and then it reveals (if you put it in) all the other information you need to connect when the other person is not on Skype. The big issue for me is one profile or identity doesn’t work in all places at all times. Just like we may resist taking work calls at home or dating calls at work one identity will not suit all conversations. Rather than embrace the Skype profile… Skype should be embracing other profiles. Thus providing choice over CallerID.  Note this is a design feature of Phweet. It is profile agnostic.

Now two points in a row that may sound like heresy! Open up your communications platform. Actually this is an appeal to insert your communications platform into the flow of others. Although I’m not sure that Skype’s Identity layer will allow this or make it easy. (I think impossible).

Luca also wants SkypeMail. He doesn’t need it if they infect Twitter as Twitter could provide the mail infrastructure. Although I’d still create a SkypeMail. In fact I’d think Skype could do it using Google! (oops!). Point here is we want talk, text and post! post is the asynchronous approach.

Still one of the main reasons Skype cannot become a social network is it’s intrusive nature. There’s a reason not many talk on Facebook or the conversations take place “out of network”.  In fact I believe many of these networks are going the wrong way about communication. If communications are leaving the network anyways then make it easier not harder to make your directory a part of the conversation. If the conversation escalates on Skype or Phweet or another conferencing solution, these directory services are much better off if they remain accessible and continue to manage elements of the data exchange. For example sharing pictures is probably more valuable into Facebook while talking with a friend than sharing them one to one. Yet Skype could easily create a Facebook app. Or a MySpace app for a minuscule outlay.

Skype is intrusive because any friend can “Ring”; as the caller and not the receiver is in charge. The result is the majority of users only accept calls from approved buddies and that creates a real hurdle for making new connections. It’s further thwarted by the need to get permission before you can chat in many cases. I’d note that the traditional phone system and Twitter don’t work like this. (Although on Twitter you have to change your settings to “all @replies”). Many people don’t like Skype because it is intrusive and they have little control over interruptions.

Skype’s second problem for future communications is it is not sharable. It doesn’t generate URL’s. There’s no way seemingly that you can join my call or I can broadcast what I am talking about. Similarly records of calls are no better than the traditional telephone system. In other words others can’t ask to join if they don’t know the call is in progress. (Again an option that Phweet creates). Then if Skype considers my strategy for plugging in to major social networks their plug-in architecture solves the problem.

Overall I’m not saying Skype can’t strengthen their strategy or involvement in the social networking space. I’ve proven above they have opportunities. Equally, I believe they have failed to leverage eBay related opportunities. It does require them to become a different type of player. Skype’s no longer really infectious. It’s just a tool. Yet escalating to voice and video remains really valuable. More importantly being in the “status” stream and integrating with it will be central to communications.

Skype like Facebook is making a play for the Status update. The real question is will Twitter be able to hold on to it… lose it etc. If you ask me…  Big companies should start using Twitter Status.  Afterall it is open and what’s the risk if you need a status strategy anyways. Twitter also needs to enable this by providing a proper authentication process. Until then “security” gets in the way.

Skype’s taken the wraps off their 2.8 beta for Mac last night at CES and it’s the first time I’ve felt like progress has been made on the overall product in years. Dan York’s was the first review I read and very complete. I’ve also scanned others from Phil and Jim. In the end I want more. However on this beta two things stand out for me.

1. Video:
First someone in Skype finally asked a very good question. Why can’t we use Video for screen sharing? With different second party programs it was possible but never so convenient. I’ve cancelled my Glance Account effective immediately. It was burning $50/month hole in my wallet. Screen sharing is now possible from my Mac to any other Skype User. Window’s users aren’t so lucky and it is easy to see why. It’s a lack of hardware standards. It’s easy to swap from video to screen shot and back. It couldn’t be easier. Thank you Skype. You now solve 95% of all my screensharing needs.

2. Mood Messages:
Finally mood messages are beginning to learn from Twitter. Still while like the above someone is starting to ask some better questions and working to move the boundaries forward this only suggests potential rather than being a home run. Limiting it to Mac makes it useless as my own example shows. As soon as I use the mood update like Twitter I realize that Alec won’t see it. In fact there is no rich language like Twitter for @ replies. DM’s are easy… just open a chat window. Julian’s mood updates also demonstrate that I don’t want to see all his music updates. So in about 30 seconds it becomes clear that mood messages and mini status updates are not the same thing. The opportunity to “broadcast updates” to my buddies that might grow new conversations is interesting. It works on Twitter. Dan York made appropriate comments too re follow and unfollow. Mood messages as they are  fail to really reward the user. In the end that’s the key. I’m sure I will forget about them again now.

The Skype Mac beta also provides a “Boingo” connection although given the pricing and my general lack of need for such connectivity I don’t see it as a big thing.

Of note Jim and Phil have had a slanging match over the impact of this change on Skype Developers (are there any?). Jim says screen sharing is just a feature and fully developed collaboration platforms continue to offer a lot more. Phil says…. beware developers. As a user I’ve already voted. It’s better.. much better! So bring it on Skype. As a developer I long ago gave up on Skype. If you are a mega company there are deals you may be able to do with Skype otherwise give it a pass.

See also: Skype 2.8 Beta for Mac: Skype Access and Screen Sharing – Skype Blogs

The update continues to leave me confused about Skype. There’s a sense that there is more clarity in the direction and yet nothing major that really sets the world alight. Screen sharing will help build more users in a world where there’s an economic downturn. Yet I don’t see a cohesive mobile strategy emerging. As a mac user —- using the same basic platform that’s on the iPhone I would have been ecstatic to see the first iPhone client. Frankly that would have had more impact and be many times more importance to the industry and to exploring the future.

Skype user base continues to provide all the opportunities to be the real innovator in Telephony. The real innovations are still happening outside. I’d suggest if not already in place. Skype put someone in charge of iPhone developments. I’d also find some people that really get blogging and twitter. Skype’s own site continues to hide the blogs (go to “share”) and the mood message thing suggests to me that the Twitter factor isn’t really understood.

I’m certain I could write a killer iPhone strategy for Skype. I’m also convinced now that Skype still needs it. That means there’s still hope for many others… and in that I’d include some of the other VoIP plays.

Periodically a new buzz arises around VoIP’s future. I’ve just been reading posts by Jeff Pulver, Jon Arnold, Ken Camp, Andy Abramson and Lee Dryburgh. I naturally have my own perspective, both as a user and strategically. My position is simple. It’s about conversations. And if you want to change telecom you must shift power to the user.

I’d like to start with a comment Ken made yesterday about Phweet. I’ve edited slightly and added some bold… Ken really gets what we have done with Phweet and I’m sure Lee does too.

Stardust Global Ventures » Two highlights from 2008 – TwitterFone and Phweet

Phweet does something else that’s new. For telephony geeks, we remember that before SS7 signaling was implemented to take phone network signals out of band to a separate network, signaling frequency (SF at 2600 Hz) was carried within the voice badn. SS7 took signaling out of band to a separate packet network. Phweet also moves signaling out of band, but to the Internet. And not just PSTN signaling. It’s an example of using IP-based Internet technologies not just as a collaboration tool for ad hoc conference calling, but for using IP as a command and control channel for network resources in a new way.

Ken recognizes that under Phweet all the signaling rules can be defined by the user. I’ve said variously that our text based signal represents a contract between two or more users. That if accepted it escalates to the call. Note the if accepted. The power has shifted not only out of band but to the receiver. The signaling process also creates new options for “records” which in the current case are simply recorded in Twitter. I don’t feel a need to dwell on it here for I’ve stated before that we’ve disintermediated the directory service, shown the way to leverage real-time record keeping, and enabled a “rich data” exchange on the call setup. We’ve also enabled a world in which telephone conversations can be threaded using a persistent PhweetURL between two or more parties.  All these are things that the current system doesn’t do.

Lee Dryburgh is also one of the smartest guys around. Yet I still don’t buy this statement that argues connecting to IP services via E164 is sensible.

Skype, Openness, and “Walled Gardens” – Emerging Communications Blog

You can call between Skype and Gizmo using the E.164 namespace. I see no reason Skype should have to support the SIP URI namespace to help bolster a competitor! But again, this argument completely lacks vision of the long term evolution in communications, sticking to telephony calls over IP (yawn) being the future.

I’ve argued for years that Skype should sell a SIP URI (eg stuart_henshall@skype.net). I’d pay $5 per year for it. The reason why become even more apparent when you look at how Phweet can connect calls. Currently there’s an unnecessary interconnect charge. Hook Phweet up to Gizmo and there’s no need to pay more. Skype then has the account – billings for connecting and forwarding to the PSTN etc. The problem with Skype is they still control the directory service. This is potentially their Achilles Heel! As long as they provide an efficient routing to an end point it’s attractive. Their profile is better than anything in the PSTN and their IM system does enable some context before the call.

Phweet’s approach could enable calls to any IP endpoint or decent mobile to be more secure than Skype. Skype is only secure P2P and is open and not encrypted whenever it connects via its gateway to the PSTN. Many analysts and writers have said over the years that they should get a view into Skype’s encryption policies. Others have questioned the “chinese” backdoor. What they really want is to control the “keys” themselves. The encryption layer can be handled by your own trusted third parties and doesn’t have to be sent / signaled in the traditional way. I think these elements may pose a real challenge to Skype’s longer term architecture.

Lee was bothered by the discussion around Skype being open or closed vs Gizmo. I too don’t think it matters. Let the user choose. Using Gizmo with Phweet is definitely cheaper than Skype for I don’t need a SkypeIn or SkypeOut number and $’s.  The point is… we use different channels for different reasons. These include, where we are, what the situation is, the quality we want or need, etc. In fact Andy Abramson sums up yet again what users are going to do and are already doing, behaviorally and in terms of service.  Grand Central came closest in my book to helping you with routing. The downside. You had to have yet another number. That’s where I have a problem.

In a PSTN world there’s a problem having the exchange in the middle. As Jajah, Mobivox and others have found it is hard to challenge Skype when your cost to call is 2x the competition for there are two legs to the call. They simplified with dial-in options etc. That’s also true in many mobile markets where dialing in to the exchange is using minutes that are paid for anyways. There’s also security issues with the man or exchange in the middle.  I’d suggest these can both be overcome. There are real value added opportunities for having an exchange (mobivox provides a great example with your virtual assistant) and simply convenience and control. When the users control the exchange they can make it work for them. When it does they will be prepared to spend more.

More numbers also aren’t the solution. I’d pose that there is only one place we really want “notifications” and that’s on the mobile (PC too if you want). Although some notifications are more important than others. I’m keen on call handling… handling interruptions in total not just calls. It’s also dependent on our context. The world is increasingly filled with richer communications options. Yet traditional communication still treats each exchange separately. Skype IM has a history and the iPhone can thread SMS. However I may have two or more conversations going on with the same person. One about an important business contract I may pick up on at any time. While a “casual call” that isn’t related to our “business” could be postponed.. handled with a simple text etc.

Jeff writes about challenging the status quo.

The Jeff Pulver Blog: VoIP is NOT Dead!

In order for these dreams to be realized, it will require a new group of people who believe in challenging the status quo, to stand up and be counted on.  While I am looking for others to join the NEW revolution, I am ready and prepared to do what it takes to continue to push for the promise of what IP Communications can offer.  So while some of my friends may declare that VoIP is Dead, I don’t.

Well lets just do that! How to challenge the status quo!???!!!

1. Turn the focus from the end points and numbers to the exchange. Note the comments like Andy’s Jeff’s and Alec’s which are framed by social media / social networks etc are already headed this way. If you want to change telecom you must enable the users to control the exchange. Phweet does this in a simple way. Our PhweetURL is the exchange.

2. Separate the CallerID / Profile from channel and ensure that the design of your exchange is agnostic to both the profile/directory service and whatever channel the users want to participate with. Again Phweet does this. It also means users have “real” options on determining the routing call by call.

With Phweet we made a conscious decision not to involve ourselves in the identity layer. (I also wish there was more progress on oAuth!) None of us have one single identity and we share different facets of ourselves in different ways at different times. This was one reason I gave up earlier on a “one ID for all communications”.

3. Enable the user choice over how to signal, public, private, “fast” “slow” and separate that signal completely from the voice channel. This signal is richer… for it can carry context, terms, expiry, usage, privacy, etc. Now… if you keep this simple what does the user want. They want to signal that they would like to talk. (Disclosure we’ve applied for patents in this area.) A short text message may suffice, or something longer. You also want quick escalation. DTMF tones don’t do this very well. Similarly our interest in “Click to call” type solutions. Just punch, click or even just say their name. And I’m fine with voice to text signals. This signal is an offer for a contract. It’s also my exchange so I may pay all the bills no matter where you are etc.

4. Let the users broadcast their profiles, contact details etc without fear of unwanted interruption or breaches of privacy. We”re doing this already on Twitter. Put the receiver in charge. If I want to set it so your call automatically come though that’s cool. Equally if I want context before accepting that’s fine too. Access is built on trust and relationships. It should no longer be based on the fact you have my number. (Just another reason

5. Make telecom billing records irrelevant relative to the exchange. It’s the service, the conversation, who, what about, etc that was really important. That’s just one new area for value adds.

So whether VoIP is dead or not really doesn’t matter. We still need to talk and setting that up must become both easier and at the same time, more filtered. Everyone is looking for richer communications. It should be easy to escalate and know how to do it. The final terms may be up to the receiver. Eg Video, Voice, just text etc. And I’ve not even mentioned “presence” and “location” both of which are being redefined.

There are days when a number brings home the real reality of VoIP and it’s real irrelevance. Should I perhaps too be celebrating that Skype crossed 14 million users concurrently online?  What does this number mean in real terms and is it important?

So my point tonight re irrelevance relates to size. 14 million online at one time does not mean 14 million are calling or talking at the same time. It does mean Skype remains the largest VoIP consumer play. I’ve been online for 12 hours today and I’ve made 4 Skype calls. All were international. All used Skype because its a convenient way to save dollars or make them for free. Not all required a PC. Still i used phones too.

By ways of comparison 14 million concurrent users online is less than the number of new mobile phone connections signed up in India in two months! Nokia sells most of them. Skype’s own blog says like having everyone in the city of London using Skype which they obviously don’t. Thus a very small piece of the world really uses Skype. Although possibly quite a few rely on it’s economics.

There was a time when I could point to Skype and say… “look there is a possible plausible future” for the future of telephony. It was supported by costs. I’d ask… “What’s your Skype strategy?”.  We know that Skype going from one million to two million (years ago) was many times more impactful in the boardrooms everywhere. It had and displayed dimensions that traditional telephony didn’t do well. It’s directory was better. It had presence, it had a buddylist and some privacy controls. Over time it has become more like a telecom and less like a piece of software set to revolutionize the world. A fact supported by the lack of API development and telecom communities that have sprung up around other more open solutions.

The growth of Skype hasn’t really changed telecom. It may have helped accelerate the move away from landlines and changed pricing strategies but fundamentally hasn’t impacted on mobiles. Today the growth of Facebook is more likely to change telecom. Telecom directories are obsolete in a networked world. In fact the whole idea of dialing is obsolete too. We’re looking for new methods and new services are emerging. However they are coming where telephony is more open and more likely to adapt to change. Location based services are about to explode. Strategically the “thought experiment” that Skype enabled 5+ years ago is simply no longer relevant. Today, you simply can’t point to Skype in a way that creates the same power that it did then.

Disruptive Telephony: Skype crosses over 14 million simultaneous users!

I didn’t notice the number of simultaneous users in my Skype client today, but the folks over at Skype Journal did notice and Skype Numerologist Jean Mercier captured the occasion with a screen shot. Mercier writes:

“We needed only 35 days to go from 13 million concurrent users online to 14 million.”

It is indeed an impressive statistic. (Confirmed by Skype’s own blog.)

Congrats to the folks at Skype!

So I hate sounding negative on this one. Skype is still a favored tool for many reasons. It’s the best voice video service there is too. I just don’t see the ! on 14 million as really changing anything. The Skype promise that existed five years ago that also embraced a more egalitarian more secure form of P2P based telephony hasn’t found the way to become universal and certainly not mobile. If anything that story has become corrupted. Today, looking at Skype it has not been the CD to the record or DVD to the VCR and it won’t be.

I still believe we are on the cusp of a telephony and communications revolution. The learnings we have had should now be taking us forward. As a VoIP group and industry though we better look for another counter. Looking at Skype is looking at a downstream rather than upstream indicator and that’s always a mistake.

There are new emerging services that still have just a few thousand users. They are the ones we should focus on test and write about. The gamechanges are already out there.

While lots of Skype news today is about their new rates my rummaging around in the details finally got me to take a look at SkypeToGo. SkypeToGo creates a local number for you to dial into. You can also assign up to six frequent names or use it as a way to dial PSTN numbers from your mobile or home phone. No catches. It’s not really a new or a neat trick – dial a number to get access to cheaper rates for where you want to dial.

I saw the value in a different quarter. It allows you to set up your locked down AT&T PSTN landline to have access to free calling whether US or globally. From a user perspective… the family can use my account to make all the long distance calls without needing my computer or another phone plugged in. I just have to tell them the local number to dial. They can add it to their mobile etc. No more messing with Skype Business Accounts to top up their Skype accounts and no more need to set up their accounts, or PC’s etc when they cannot be bothered. It’s just a simpler way to get them to save money. It’s also a lot cheaper than buying a worldwide plan for my wife as well as me. Now one Worldwide plan can suit the whole family.

As a method it really has nothing to do with Skype just leveraging their interconnect infrastructure. Still the SkypeToGo number is going up on our wall. Good chance that for my wife will it redefine what a Skype call means. Unfortunately that sort of dumbs it down. Further downside… it doesn’t move telephony much further ahead.

Oh the new rates… much better than the SkypePro option that proceeded it.

I’m looking forward to eComm on March 12 to 14. Although I had to wonder about “radical innovation” tied to Skype, Google and Ribbit.

eComm™ is a brand new telecom event for those interested in radical innovation and seizing the next opportunity wave. Skype will open day one, Google day two and Ribbit day three. eComm2008: Emerging Communications Conference

This is where I start to wonder… nope. They are big names indeed although not quite where the innovation is. By eComm we will know the outcome of the AppleSDK launch for iPhone. I’d also expect there will be more coming from Symbian in time. (Note David Beckemeyer’s comments on Nokia’s certification approach).

So my quick rethinking of the thinking.
1. Mobile Interfaces – We are at a really disruptive phase. (They are likely to smash the IM / Client style paradigm we have been expecting. Yet Apple will not be mentioned but in the pocket of more than 50% of the audience.
2. API’s and Mashups - Ribbit is but one. More are coming; how many are really required? What makes them really different?
3. Presence / Access /Identity: I see some of these themes there; I’m not sure I see the deeper “Directory” innovation.
4. Too little is done around billing. In a world of micro and free; billing seems to be both boring and why real options get limited. Someone with some billing smarts should step forward and empower the rest of us.