Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (25672)	3/3/2008 7:16:43 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank - "Why would a Tier One backbone provider (the largest of whom are also last mile service providers now) look any less favorably towards my consuming 1 MB of backbone capacity using Skype than, say, consuming 20 MB while uploading (or downloading) an image to (from) Flickr or YouTube? I should think that they'd be twenty times more delighted with the former than the latter, although who's kiddin' who here? Where would the backbone providers be if all traffic were to cease flowing entirely? (Although that is another discussion in itself, so I won't digress on it here.) But it's not really about this root level of economics, after all now. Is it." Why indeed? It's a fact that both P2P traffic and VoIP traffic (including both Skype and Vonage) have been subject to DPI and sequestration at the First/Last Mile - and we can expect that to continue on RF networks, in the guise of traffic management. As discussed upstream, the ingenuity of end-users will see them using "anything that works" on the Internet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Also, while this makes for an interesting discussion, which I believe we've started having here several times in the past but never quite resolved, I do not subscribe to the argument that either Skype or its end users are getting away with a free ride, since the Internet's backbones are, in the final analysis, funded by subscribers. Are they not? And one would be hard pressed to suggest a method of allocating those subscribers fees once they are paid, which itself is another set of conversations all its own." Neither one of us subscribes to the notion; you'll note that I too excepted myself. But obviously some parties hold that strong belief. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The reason why Skype is chosen far more frequently than Gizmo (another VoIP application with attributes similar to those of Skype, but tailored primarily to WiFi; see: gizmovoip.com ) is NOT because of the standards they do, or do not, abide by. It comes down to the number of members in the group, as a form of validation of Metcalfe's Law. And aside from the fact that it is generally free and easy to use, it is in large part because Skype has hundreds of millions of users (vs. significantly far fewer subscribers using any other VoIP application) that it usually wins, hands down, and not because it employs or ignores standards that are any better or worse than anyone else's." I think we're beginning to home in on the central issue. The reasons for popularity of Skype, or Adobe's .pdf format, or Netscape, YouTube, or P2P apps (over their evolution) are: A - There was an unfulfilled need - a market. B - The market could be satisfied at zero cost to the end user C - The product was easily distributed on the Internet, being obtained, installed and used with almost trivial effort.[- How much has the parallel evolution of self-installing software aided this process? Another synergy] D - The app might integrate some superior aspect of evolving technology, including software: for instance, the voice codec for Skype, or the use of the Flash video format on YouTube. However, there's nothing unique about any of these apps - none of them represents a completely unexpected divergence from what preceded it. Free distribution on the 'net is hardly new. Skype is simply a variant on VoIP, again hardly new. Onsite video has been around for quite a while, but it took Flash video (with its integration into browsers) to make it practical. The key to the success of these apps is synergy: zero-cost, easy distribution installation and use, and response to specific need. While we shouldn't underestimate the importance of zero cost to the end-user, we should also recognize that the savings differ widely among these apps. Skype, for instance, can save the user hundreds of dollars in a week - and that's a powerful economic incentive. Thus Skype, simply by cost avoidance can enable communication, even where none previously existed. The power of this motivator can be judged by the fact that Skype callers will occasionally tolerate far lower QOS: the cost of cost avoidance, if you will. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In summary Frank, I don't see anything particularly novel about any of these apps - they're simply manifestations of markets that can be satisfied on the Internet. Markets made visible by apps that satisfy them. They're not standards-evasive, or standards-defying - though they may (by virtue of popularity) become the standard, for a while: but only until they're superceded by the next synergistic iteration, or subdivision, or both. That's the fractal, Mandelbrot-like characteristic of Internet evolution: it scales both ways. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It may be that we can't resolve the difference in our perceptions. Not all such differences can be resolved by reason. Jim