Thanks for returning. You're a very smart person.
It’s funny that Skype continues to try and angle its way into the lucrative business communications space when all they need to do is improve the business user experience.
Today Skype is still a consumer experience. AIM on steriods.
At least that’s how it’s viewed by many a business user and IT administrator. Coming from a business user and someone who’s worked with thousands of business VoIP users I’d have to agree.
Just look at the hardware made for Skype. Cools toys and gadgets.
Business people want business experiences.
Think Cisco and Polycom. Their phones embody business. That’s why their number one and two in the states at the business desktop.
Business users trip over themselves to buy them.
For Skype to gain a serious foothold in the business marketplace they’ll need start at the user. Most business users don’t prefer a desktop client. They have, are and will continue to be hardware centric.
Imagine Skype certified Cisco 79XX series phones. That’d bring a business experience. And a heck of a lot more paying business customers.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Amen, brother! Hardware phones still rule the enterprise and SMB space. Their release of the SILK codec is interesting though. I doubt Cisco would move on it, but imagine an IP550 that could be a Skype client. That could change things for Skype in a business setting.
What about the idea of Skype integrating with a PBX? Maybe Skype should pursue more of a trunking strategy rather than attempting to be a cloud PBX (which is where I think Google Voice is ultimately headed).
I believe Skype’s intent is to allow Asterisk systems to enable Skype as a viable business platform interface. Imagine a Polycom with SIREN14 wideband, talking to a local Asterisk server, which translates into SILK and Skype datastream and delivers to a remote user on a Skype soft client. None of these components are on the distant horizon - they’re either in beta or in serious consideration. Perhaps they’re not in the business market now, but I think they’ve got a strategy for wedging themselves in the door.
@ Michael
That’s why I like you Michael. You’re a practical thinker.
@ Sean
I think Skype could actually come out with their own premise or hosted PBX. They’re probably heading their especially with the work their are doing with Asterisk (as John points out).
@ John
I think the Skype-Asterisk play is important, but it needs better packaging. It is still way to much for the average business to wrap their heads around.
Nice thoughts, but as always, one must consider “what’s in it for ___?”
Regarding SILK, unless I’m completely off my mark, this is simply Skype’s “Super Wideband Audio Codec”, which they’re offering TO LICENSE to 3rd parties. 1) A codec is not a protocol such as SIP or IAX. It is simply a way of digitally encoding audio in this case. Polycom already has their own “HD Audio” codecs, so one would have to wonder why they’d want to encumber themselves with a license outside their control. What’s in it for Polycom?
Assuming one can find a case for that, the Polycom handset that uses SILK has a shot, as Polycom sells hardware, and IF there were enough demand for such a hardware phone, I’m sure they’d sell it. But a codec won’t do it. Let’s say Skype allows others to use their proprietary protocol itself, so you could have what you’re talking about… a business class handset that can “do Skype.”
But it’s a little chicken-and-egg scenario even in that case. If businesses don’t currently consider Skype because they’re hardware-centric (which I agree is the case for most), then where’ the demand for such hardware? And if there’s no demand, will Polycom make such units? Not all companies are willing to spend the R&D on an untested market.
Now as for trunking, there are some implementations in the works, such as Celiax’s FreeSWITCH module:
http://www.celliax.org/node/503
But they’re hacks at best. From that page,
“This software (Skypiax) uses the Skype API but is not endorsed, certified or otherwise approved in any way by Skype.
Skypiax is an endpoint (channel driver) that use the Skype client as an interface to the Skype network, and allows incoming and outgoing Skype calls from/to FreeSWITCH (that can be bridged, originated, answered, etc. as in all other endpoints, eg sofia/SIP).”
So let’s presume even further that Skype magically see the light and offers a FREE API/SDK for building software/hardware that can interface with the Skype network. (I won’t hold my breath on this, but let’s fantasize, shall we?) So we now have proper access/tools to build decent gateways for PBX software and firmware for handsets, with a low barrier to entry for developers.
Now, what’s in it for ___? For the Asterisk/FreeSWITCH/open-source based PBX community, odds are you’ll see things developed, because they want to use it themselves. So in time those products, including their commercially supported variants (PBXtra, TrixBox Pro, etc.), would like have Skype support. That’s great for the Small to Medium Business (SMB) market.
But what about the enterprise market? What’s in for the Ciscos of the world to add Skype support? Considering those firms make loads of money providing everything from soft clients of their own–like the Cisco Communicator (at additional cost, of course)–to hardware solutions–like Cisco VPN routers at remote sites that trunk to a central office so remote Cisco handsets can talk to a Cisco CallManager–why would such firms ever add Skype support?
I’m not knocking the idea. I just don’t see the motivation. Sure, if enough businesses were to demand that their PBXes could inter-operate with Skype, or that their users could run Skype clients on their laptops and interface back into the office PBX, we might see some movement by enterprise players (again, assuming the fantasy that Skype opens up access to their network).
As for business-grade handsets that use the Skype protocol vs. SIP/IAX/SCCP/etc., that would likely require Skype offering PBX level services themselves. And realistically, beyond SMBs, I don’t see anyone going for that. If you’re a shop of 10-50 people, you might be ok using Skype as a hosted PBX solution. But beyond a certain point, having your PBX setup locally becomes far more practical (as even during an Internet outage your internal folks will be able to communicate with one another).
Found this post that also tried to figure out Skype’s next moves. Thought you might find it interesting.
http://voiceontheweb.biz/2009/03/Skype-business-model-revealed-at-ebay-analyst-event/
Garrett,
However, the idea of making FreeSWITCH immediately accessible to millions of Skype users is much more intriguing. One thing that Skype is doing is getting the average telephone user acquainted with call quality much better than what the PSTN offers. I think you are correct that there would be even more users of Skype if there was a piece of hardware that could sit on a desk or hang on a wall. Perhaps the opening of SILK will make this possible? We’ll see.
Good observations. From a technology standpoint the FS devs were pretty much yawning about having Skype integration. Technologically speaking it’s pretty much just another protocol. After experiencing a 48kHz conference using FS + CELT, pretty much anything else is just pedestrian.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
-MC
@Frank
I agree with you. I don’t think SILK is the game changer many hype it to be. A codec isn’t going to drive business usage or more paying customers.
My argument above was that if Skype wants to take a foothold in the business space they need a business user experience. This starts with hardware. (Which you agreed with)
As for what’s in it for the Cisco’s and Polycom’s of the world? I suspect the 13 million constant users of the Skype is enough to peak their attention (the Polycom Communicator is a very popular built for Skype product). But more then likely Skype will have to give them something - like a cut of the services - in order to lure more R&D for built for Skype desktop phones.
In the end Skype has promise in the 15 and under space. But they have to improve the business user experience.
They won’t be anything more then a low cost plain old VoIP service for the enterprise. Perhaps not even that. I’d tend to think they view Skype as inherently risky.
Hopefully they make the right moves. It’s too great a service.
Garrett,
I don’t think SILK has anything to do with businesses and everything to do with chipsets.
Skype needs to bring more ears to their solution, and as they practically rule consumer desktops these days, their best bet (besides businesses) is consumer electronics. To get there, they need chipset providers to support their super-great-widebandy-codec, which they can do by offering it to the VoIP community royalty free.
Once the codec is available on a large number of chipsets, it’s an easy matter to port the rest of their Skype protocol/application/service to these chipsets and to additional devices - including business-looking ones.
Tsahi
Another issue with using Skype in businesses is its peer-to-peer technology. I don’t think many IT admins will be happy, when the Skype enabled Cisco’s/Polycoms start peering traffic for neighboring Skypers and become a supernode on the company’s 100mbit internet pipe.
Leave a Comment