Why it makes sense for Microsoft to buy Skype - and why they'll have a very hard time making it their own (Andrew's Blog 05/12/2011)

A very nice synopsis on the VoIP technology and why Skype works so well.

From a tech perspective, if you start by agreeing that voice and video over the internet is going to be important over the next decade, you're halfway there.

Andrew's bits at the end are very insightful:

What this means for Microsoft

With Skype, Microsoft gets the ONLY successful VoIP alternative that users have accepted, that works through firwewalls, and that can be purchased. Nobody can "own" SIP or h.323. IAX2 solves many of the problems with those other protocols but it's open source. Open source presents many problems for Microsoft because they can't just change it the way they want without sharing their changes and they can't keep competitors from duplicating their work.

Where Microsoft will get into trouble with Skype

While Skype works amazingly well from an end user perspective, that very connectivity presents problems for Corporate firewalls. First, Skype is very hard to block. ...Second, Skype's communication is a kind of peer-to-peer hybrid model. ... If you're using skype, your own system becomes part of the routing network for the global Skype data. Corporations, with their very fast (and expensive) network connections, can accidentally become "Supernodes" on the Skype network ...This kind of connectivity works extremely well in an open and free client for end users, but once Microsoft is behind it, the game changes. ... End users at home are going to resent carrying data for other people in corporations. Changing the connectivity protocols in Skype would be messing with the very thing that makes it successful.

I agree with "but once Microsoft is behind it, the game changes" comment and it will be interesting to see just how that game changes. Breaking out two Skype networks (consumer and corporate) could disrupt the efficiency of Skype today, since corporate "supernodes" are clearly a benefit. How will corporations get behind purchasing a service that uses the customer's network for other customers? Compliance and risk issues come to mind here.

While I "get" that owning all the proprietary, really-good, successful technology is a good thing for Microsoft I'm still curious how Microsoft will take a technology that is based on methodologies and architectures that are the antithesis to the design of most of its corporate technology. Of course there is the Online division, which fits better, but my brain cramp there is that Microsoft spent the last decade streamlining its platforms so they would be ubiquitous in the cloud or on-premise. If Skype only landed in Online then we get an anomaly (let alone the Lync challenge). That's smacks of an IBM Lotus acquisition. Then again, there is the Entertainment division, which I see Skype fitting into nicely.

Why it makes sense for Microsoft to buy Skype - and why they'll have a very hard time making it their own (Andrew's Blog 05/12/2011)

Gauging the Real Value of SaaS E-mail

I'm pleased to announce the publication of "Gauging the Real Value of Software as a Service (SaaS) E-mail for Small and Medium Businesses," a Collaborative Strategy Guild white paper on SaaS E-mail and productivity. You can download the paper via the CSG site. Here's the abstract:

The e-mail market is rapidly evolving as new business-grade software as a service (SaaS) e-mail options become a viable alternative to the traditional on-site e-mail by competing on price and value. Information Technology (IT) decision makers are pressured to reduce costs, so they’re considering a move to SaaS e-mail solutions, which is driving businesses to scrutinize current e-mail strategies. Making a SaaS e-mail decision depends upon the unique needs of the business and how available options not only offer cost savings, but also productivity value.

In this paper, Collaborative Strategy Guild founding member, Karen Hobert, focuses on the SaaS e-mail market, its impact on small and medium businesses (SMBs), and how to find the real value in different product offerings.

Apples to Kumquats: Comparing Cloud Service Offerings

I recently read through a new Google Apps Premier Edition (GAPE) Partner Guide called 7 Keys to Comparing Google Apps Premier Edition with Microsoft Exchange Server 2007. Discrepancies and misdemeanors aside, the biggest problem I have with the piece is that it's the wrong comparison if you want to sell Google Apps to customers. The piece is great collateral to demonstrate the differences between on-premises and hosted services but it does not say why way GAPE is say better than Microsoft Exchange Online.

To be fair, and not to single out Google, I've found that the collateral from major cloud computing vendors (including IBM and Microsoft) tend to do a pretty good job at presenting arguments in favor of cloud-based services versus on-premises deployments, but they tend to confuse the comparison as justification that their particular services are better than another vendor's services. Wouldn't the Google piece have more value if it were called 7 Keys to Comparing Google Apps Premier edition with Microsoft Exchange Online?

Of course cloud computing is the hot new item and currently represents a huge new promised land for enterprise computing; what if you could have all of the benefits of email without all the fuss? It's like dating without commitments. In reality there are commitments and right now vendors see huge opportunities as long as they can get the huge economies of scale that make it all pay off. It's big business.

Last week I blogged about a recent McKinsey report that shoots some holes into the cloud argument. My best advice to any customer is to consider these delivery models carefully and make strategic decisions according to thier unique business, technical, and security requirements. The real comparison is two-fold; is cloud computing a good choice for you, and which cloud offering will meet the needs of your firm?