Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Communications

Google, Skype and the Future of IM 315

Posted by CmdrTaco from the nothing-like-a-little-theory dept.
Matt Veenstra sent in a nice little piece of rumor mongering about how Google's new Talk/Jabber/IM thing is just a stepping stone, but it's really just a foreshadowing of their future buyout of Skype. Worth some thought anyway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google, Skype and the Future of IM More

Google, Skype and the Future of IM

Comments Filter:

  • "News" implies some basis in fact... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:06AM (#13388333)

    Slashdot: Speculation for Half-wits.
    Honestly, is a story based at least marginally on fact too much to ask? A entire article without one scrap of evidence to back it up...in fact, in under thirty seconds I was able to find two [lostcoders.net] articles [technewsworld.com] that would seem to contradict this assertion.

    How exactly did this make it onto Slashdot?

    Google, Skype and the Future of IM

    Oh, I see...

  • Google vs. Skype (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hkmwbz ( 531650 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:06AM (#13388334) Journal
    Google and Skype could turn out to be competitors as well. Do we really want Google to buy up potential competitors?

    But I guess history shows that the Skype creators could sell their creation to set out for something else. That's what they did with Kazaa anyway.

    • Would you rather have Microsoft buy them up?

    • Re:Google vs. Skype (Score:2, Interesting)

      by djg1977 ( 909867 )
      I can't imagine Google acquiring Skype. They seem to have way too different cultures. Why Google didn't buy Flickr, on the other hand, is a mystery to me. Flickr would have been a perfect match to Google Picasa, not to mention Google Maps - imagine clicking on a location on the map and seeing user-submitted images from there. Anyway, it's too late now, let's see how Yahoo! screws! this! one! up!.

    • Re:Google vs. Skype (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @10:13AM (#13389370) Journal
      Do we really want Google to buy up potential competitors?

      Yes.

      Well, not all the time, but usually, the situation is like this:

      Potential Competitor is big enough to matter, but small enough that they could also be bought out by microsoft.

      Potential Competitor charges money, and/or has lots of obnoxious ads on their website / in their software.

      Potential Competitor's tech sucks -- website, application, everything -- the only thing they've got going for them is that it was a relatively innovative.

      Google never has a website that sucks, and the apps I've seen are at least decent.

      Google doesn't seem to charge for anything except ad placement, and their ads are mostly-relevant, unobtrusive text ads.

      Google can't/won't be bought out by Microsoft.

      Given the alternatives, I'd rather Google buy up competitors.

  • Why would they buyout Skype? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:06AM (#13388335)
    They already have VoIP built into their client and a huge marketing machine, including millions of viral marketing droids, working in their favor.
    • They already have VoIP built into their client and a huge marketing machine, including millions of viral marketing droids, working in their favor.

      Their client only works on Windows. Skype has voice support on multiple platforms. I was REALLY hoping this would be a Yahoo Messenger replacement, but it offers no new additional features and is in fact less functional since it doesn't support video.

      • The first version of google desktop didn't check your gmail for you.

        The first version of google didn't remember your search history.

        The first version of google's search didn't search images.

        Need I go on?

        • Innovations and Aquisitions (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ear1grey ( 697747 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @11:27AM (#13390035) Homepage
          The first version of ... x 3

          Well said.

          Having spent a while this morning instlling it, and generally buggering about with it, I was left with the distinct impression [boakes.org] that this is the thin end of another GoogleWedge (TM).

          In summary:

          • It doesnt innovate: in either the IM or the VOIP world,
          • It has fewer features than competing clients/networks

          but

          • It has millions of ready made users with gmail accounts.
          • It has a surprisingly respectful user interface that is a joy to use.
          • It has potential to be extended from day one (unlike AIM or YIM where the owners have fought to keep the protocols closed and proprietary.
          If I were to be really speculative I'd say that the most significant effect of todays beta launch is that it positions Google as a credible competitor to Skype, which may lower Skype's valuation, and thus make it a more attractive aquisition.
      • But Professor UNIX, It's just a beta client! On their page, they specifically say that there will be versions available for other platforms, and that it will support communicating with people who use other IM networks.

    • From what I've heard Skype's best (and so far unique) feature is that it has very good firewall+NAT penetration tech. It is (and should be) hard to pierce various multilevel NAT's that IPv4 address hoarding has imposed on average users.

    • Do any of the Linux® Jabber clients support voice?

      Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus
      Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
    • Here's the other big if - where's the money in VOIP-over-public-network?
      • Do you sell the client?
        That's difficult partly because you need uptake, and partly because there are already numerous voice/IM clients out there.
      • Do you use it to drive bandwidth sales?
        Seems likely to work, but only moderately lucractive
      • Do you scan its content for ad placement?
        That seems likely to really freak people out and backfire in a big way.

      I can see some good money in hardware, support, and bandwith with VOIP, but client softwar

      • >To be honest, Google Talk actually seems like a bit of a deflating moment - it's the first product Google's released whose features are already widely present in the market. I haven't downloaded it, and don't really plan to, unless it has some new features to die for.

        It is a necessary step. There is no reason why every email address shouldn't also be an IM address. All we need is a standard protocol so any IM user can talk to any other user just like this is possible with email.

  • Another Google buyout? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PureCreditor ( 300490 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:06AM (#13388336)
    Doesn't anyone concern that Google now can archive your email, your IMs, your web search (thus your personal interests), and your phone calls?

    whatever happened to privacy
    • Doesn't anyone concern that Google now can archive your email, your IMs, your web search (thus your personal interests), and your phone calls?
      Only if you let them. Which is to say, only if you choose convenience over privacy. Which I don't.

      Your Mileage May Vary.
    • Really? You mean when I use Yahoo!, Google archives it? When I send email through my own server, Google can archive that? When I use AIM or YIM or MSN, Google has access to that too?

      Man... that's amazing.

      • Well, yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <<ieshan> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:26AM (#13388497) Homepage Journal
        If you send email to someone on gmail, or you IM someone who's using Google-Talk, sure, Google could have a copy of that.

        But lets be realistic. Google probably doesn't want any information about *you*, they probably want to *aggregate information*, which is what they've been doing all along.

        This is all an extension of search. Through all the "omg", "lol", and "haha"s in Instant Messenger, there's thousands of words that can be associated with both each other and with other links. There's thousands of white-listed and black-listed participants, because people naturally filter their conversations. They don't want a database about *you*, they want a relational database about *communication*, to make it easier to find out what someone means when they type something like "river bank" or "white house".

        It's all about relationships between language. Conversation is a natural extension. They provide a service, they get tons of data.

        At least, this is what I would be doing with the data. Google might not be doing that.
        • Nonsense, they do want a database about you. How else are they gonna place ads that you might follow-up in front of your face?

          Make no mistake, Google's business is advertisement, not search, maps, IM, or any other feature.

          But it's your choice to use such a system. You know they may abuse it. The public's growing use tells companies that it's ok to do such things. So consider yourself warned. Don't be mad when all your personal information isn't so personal anymore.

    • Everybody seems to be concerned about it, as it's pretty much every other comment. You can turn the search archiving off and nobody makes you use Google Talk, Gmail, or any other service they have now or will have in the future, so, if you don't like it, don't use it. I ask you: What ever happened to free will?

    • Re:Another Google buyout? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jasongetsdown ( 890117 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:15AM (#13388420)
      from the google talk faq: "12. Can you tell me more about Google Talk and privacy?

      Google respects and protects the privacy of individuals that use our services. Google Talk gives you control over whom you talk with, whom you block, and who can see your online status. Additionally, Google only requires minimal personal information--just your name and Gmail address--for you to use Google Talk.

      Google Talk currently does not encrypt chats or calls. But we are working hard to make many improvements to Google Talk while it is in beta, and we plan to fully support encryption of chats and calls before our official release.

      When you use Google Talk, you can choose to have your IM chats stored locally on your own computer so that you have a chat history. Google does not collect the content of instant message chats or voice conversations. As with all major IM services, Google Talk will collect certain log information created in the course of a conversation. This information is for Google's internal use only, to maintain statistics on usage and to improve our service and the user experience. We do not permanently store any personally-identifying information in the Google Talk logs. And we do not log any of the content of your chats or calls."

      Good enough for you?

      Also notable is that this is the first time I can think of that they've actually alluded to the Official Release of one of their perpetual betas.

    • Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gruneun ( 261463 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:43AM (#13388615)
      whatever happened to privacy

      Do you think they're providing those services out of the kindness of their heart or because they are somehow indebted to you? You chose to give up some of your privacy by using their free email, free instant messaging, and free web searching, you cheap bastard.

      You want privacy? Buy a stamp and send a letter.

    • Re:Another Google buyout? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:47AM (#13388639)
      Well until Google gives me a reason not to trust them, I will. They actively compete on their merits, not on monopoly or force. If you search for an address they still give you links for Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, and Mapquest. They have donated large sums of money to OSS and have paid for many developers to work on it over them summer. Now they are using their weight to standardize instant messaging the way e-mail is standardized. If you read Google Talk's site, you'll see that a big initiative is getting instant messaging into a state like e-mail is where you can IM anyone on any network from any IM client. Jabber has server2server capabilities and thus will greatly help this effort. If I ever sense that they are misusing my information, then I'll think about leaving them, but until then, they have my full support. They have literally made the internet a better place to be.
      Regards,
      Steve
      • If the time cones and they give you a reason not to trust them, it will be too late to do anything about it.
      • I remember thinking the same thing about Microsoft when windows 3.0 was released. They were making all the right moves, people liked the direction they were taking and no one could stop them.

        I don't trust large corporations to act ethically. A simple peak at history gives me the empirical data I need to make such decisions. But does that mean I don't solicit them? No. I just watch them with a keen eye and a bit of skepticism.

        Google is larger that "two smart boys" as they like to portray themself. The corpor

      • Re:Another Google buyout? (Score:4, Informative)

        by CvD ( 94050 ) * on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @10:25AM (#13389509) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, Jabber has server2server capabilities, but for some reason, Google has switched this off. In other words, I cannot add anyone with a jabber.org (for example) account to my Google Talk jabber account. You can only chat to other Google Talk users. I'm a little dissapointed by this step. Perhaps they will open it up in the future.
    • Don't forget browsing history, if you have the Google Toolbar set up to display pagerank.
    • Sorry, I can't hear you. The little elastic strap on your tinfoil hat is on crooked.

  • Come on... (Score:2, Funny)

    by daniil ( 775990 )
    It's Wednesday. Tuesday was yesterday. Your troll is a day late.

  • Google... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:07AM (#13388345) Homepage Journal
    Given how they've dissembled and denied all the rumours about instant messaging, it's good to see that Google's "corporate morality" is such that "tell no lies" doesn't fall within the aegis of "do no evil".

    • Re:Google... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Do you actually have a direct quote saying "no, we will not offer instant messaging?" Because I seem to remember a lot of speculation driven by the way that nobody ever came right out and said something to that effect, they just said "it's a rumor," which was true. It turned out to be a correct rumor, but still a rumor.
    • So, according to you, they should tell everybody about their plans for the future? If they don't, they are being "evil"? What were they supposed to say when asked about their IM-plans? Saying "No comment" is same as saying "yes, we are going to do it".
    • I prefer they outright lie than the fake speak we get from most companies. "No comment" is the most insulting thing anyone can say when faced with inquisitive minds.

      Personally, I'd rather a flat out lie where the truth is eventually revealed. Another example:
      Age 4: Is santa real? Yes
      Age 5: Is santa real? Yes
      Age 6: Is santa real? No
      versus
      Age 4: Is santa real? I cannot confirm or deny the existance of santa.
      Age 5: Is santa real? I plead the 5th
      Age 6: Is santa real? It is against our policy

  • Oh good (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:08AM (#13388347)
    A Google topic. I was startin' to get the jitters waiting for my fix. Tx Taco!

  • Voice feature (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:08AM (#13388349) Homepage
    I thought Google Talk already came with a voice feature? I see it right there in the options.

    Is Skype technically better?

    It would be great. Every time you click on an ad you get a free minute of long distance. Sounds like a good idea for the home user who wants to talk to his family in India. I can only imagine the number of clicks happening.

    I doubt thats how it would work, it would probably require you to DO something after you clicked on the advertisement.

    • Re:Voice feature (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jaruzel ( 804522 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:12AM (#13388390) Homepage Journal
      As I understand it, Skype can route your call to standard landlines/mobiles as well. Google Talk (at the moment) cannot.

      -Jar.

    • Re:Voice feature (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DigitumDei ( 578031 )
      The problem here is that Google would never do that. Rewarding a user for clicking on an ad would completely destroy the use of adwords. Advertisers use adwords because google makes an effort to stamp out abuses (for instance if you ask people to click your google ads on your web page, you will lose your adsense account).

      If I was an advertiser and they started making me pay for users free airtime, I'd leave them pretty damn quickly.
    • It would be great. Every time you click on an ad you get a free minute of long distance. Sounds like a good idea for the home user who wants to talk to his family in India. I can only imagine the number of clicks happening.

      That's not a bad idea.
      But I've got a slightly better one -- just get Skype, and you get a free minute of long distance.
      Then another one, then another one.
      Skype doesn't charge for long distance, only for Skype-out calls to non-Skype (landline) numbers.

    • Cross-platform support (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spirilis ( 3338 )
      Skype supports multiple platforms (Windows, Linux, MacOS X, PocketPC w/ WiFi). I use it under Linux (using the version one step back from the latest, since the latest has bugs) and it works beautifully. Plus it uses some form of technique (a P2P network) to get around firewall limitations as much as possible. As I understand it, the CODECs it uses (probably along with the network stack) are provided by http://www.globalipsound.com/ [globalipsound.com] (in a PC-to-PC skype call it says the "ISAC" codec is being used-- http:/ [globalipsound.com]
      • Skype actually seems to work *better* in Linux than in Windows. When I Skype to a couple of Windows-using friends, it's usually the Windows clients that are breaking up. On the other hand I come in clear as a bell.

        Perhaps Skype should get in contact with a creator of a Linux live CD and arrange to have their client provided with the CD. Then they can distribute Skype on the live CD and have it shown in its best light.
        • The experience I had with another user was that the sound drivers in Windows sucked whereas they sounded much clearer in Linux under ALSA (w/ OSS emulation). Windows was causing all sorts of issues (excessive echo, some god-awful interference-like noise, frequent breaking up, etc.) which were partially solved by a driver upgrade, but completely solved by using Linux. Granted the sound chipset was some cheap onboard Realtek AC97 thing...

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coolsva ( 786215 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:12AM (#13388384)
    Google has a bigger/larger presence in the market than Skype (in generic terms and brand identity). Enough to push their own client (that it follows open standards is a plus) and provide services on their own. They have a boatload of bandwidth (dark fiber), well spread edge servers (which are critical in any VOIP since that is the main cause of delay/stutter)

    As a side note, Im sure we would soon see google integrate everything where we search for a person/name, it brings up his address, phone number (both currently found by searching for number), icon to send email, IM or call directly, all a click away. Imagine that!

  • GoogleOS? YahooOS? MozillaOS? WebOS? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by huphtur ( 259961 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:13AM (#13388396)
    Check out Kottke's article GoogleOS? YahooOS? MozillaOS? WebOS? [kottke.org]. In which he speculates about the future of the WebOS.
    • IMHO his post was a classic "nothing new, move along" with the execption of "next killer app: desktop web servers."
      the rest has been chewed over so many times in other venues that it was hard to read. The guy really doesn't have that much to offer.
    • In which he speculates about the future of the WebOS.

      This concept is mostly for half-wits who think "operating system" means "a suite of applications"- the same people who don't understand what an "operating system" does.

      Ie, handle processor interrupts and whatnot.

  • Why release Google Talk then? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by warmgun ( 669556 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:13AM (#13388397)
    If Google were planning on buying out Skype, why would they release a version of Google Talk with their own implementation of voice chat? Doesn't make much sense to me. Furthermore, has Google ever bought a company worth that much before? Most of their aqcuisitions seem to be companies that have good software but aren't very popular, therefore, they Google gets quite a bargain by purchasing them for far less than they're worth. Skype doesn't fit that bill, imo.

  • Does it have to be a buyout? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by b4k3d b34nz ( 900066 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:14AM (#13388407)

    Since we're jumping to conclusions about Google's corporate strategy today, I'll go ahead and give mine. It seems to me like Google wants to get into the field with their product and see where it goes.

    Google Talk seems pretty barebones at the moment, but if we remember correctly, so was Gmail when it first came out. I've had it from day 3 or 4, and it wasn't really all that great at the time--the only thing to write home about was the amount of space you have.

    Anyway, that seems to be Google's strategy with everything--launch a product in beta, then continuously improve it until everyone loves it. I could be wrong, but it seems like they would be competing with Skype and using their own in-house programs, rather than buying them out.

    Just a thought...

  • Or not... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jpsowin ( 325530 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:14AM (#13388409) Homepage
    Worth some thought anyway.

    Or not. I have better things to think about than rumors of Google buying companies they haven't offered to purchase. Like commenting on this story about the rumors!

  • More speculation... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:16AM (#13388426) Homepage
    ...so I guess I'll join in. This could be really cool. Skype and Google could be a marriage made in heaven. Skype is a good product, but to be great I think a few google phds could really iron out some of its potential flaws. Also, the google brand could make the product less scary to companies who see 'from the company that bought you kazaa' as a bad thing (quite rightly). It would also increase the number of people on the system. Even though its been out for months, I know very few people that use it.

    The biggest problem I see with Skype at the moment is hardware. I set my girlfriend up with it and it caused no end of problems. Its one thing learning to use the interface (which is good) its another thing to learn about feedback, line in/out and buying a headphone set specifically for the purpose of VoIP (even if it is only $15). Still it was easier than trying to get AIM to work with iChat for a video chat.

  • I have this feeling that the page will be slashdotted soon, so I'll just go ahead and post the worthless article (not that anyone will read it anyway)

    Vol 13: Why Google's Instant Message Service is Not about Jabber but about Skype Date Published: August 23, 2005 By: Matt Veenstra

    We recently have heard through the grapevine that the 3 billion dollar (US) offer from News Corp. was not enough money to convince the wonder twins over at Skype, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, to sell. This is not just

  • That's not what they say on their own site! (Score:4, Informative)

    by OsirisX11 ( 598587 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:24AM (#13388475)
    If you read the google talk about and developer pages,
    they clearly say that Google is committed to open standards. Skype is certainly not an open standard!

    http://www.google.com/talk/about.html [google.com]
    http://www.google.com/talk/developer.html [google.com]
  • who can't stop all this jibber-Jabber about Google.
  • I said the same darn thing yesterday on my blog http://thatedeguy.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] this article is a little more technical about it but what the heck...
  • I wonder... Google.com profit is just ads and selling search tech to others. GMail is mainly "search your mail" (Free POP3!), secondary profit - ads. Now Google Talk - most likely monitoring/aggregating IM conversations. I wonder if they will be able to aggregate/search voice conversations the same.

  • Google Will Never Buy Skype (Score:4, Interesting)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:44AM (#13388621) Homepage

    This whole piece is full of half-baked speculation. Google is perfectly happy with their current client which has been in development for months.

    Its not as if Google is in the business of investing time, money and press exposure on "interim, stepping stones".

    Google wanted Jabber. And that's what they used. The current client supports VOIP, and uses open standards. Anyone who knows Google knows that Jabber and Google's own VOIP are the platform for the next 5 years at least.

    The only question should be: Will Google buy Webb Interactive (46% owner of Jabber)

  • Will Google Buy Webb Interactive? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @08:50AM (#13388667) Homepage

    Actually, the more I think about this... the more it makes sense.

    Webb Interactive (WEBB.OB) owns somewhere south of 50% of Jabber, Inc.

    It *does* seem sort of surprising that Google would bank so heavily on the Jabber platform with no equity stake. Granted, its an open standard, but the amount of development Jabber, Inc. has in terms of server and enterprise components far, far exceeds anything that Google has.

    I'd put my 2 cents on Google buying (the very tiny Webb Interactive) before they buy Skype.
  • Last I checked, Google's image tool was named Picasa, not Picasso.

    Silly mistakes like this give the impression of a dashed off article after a coffee-break idea, rather than careful consideration which is backed up by a bit of research.

  • Not what THIS guy says... (Score:5, Informative)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @09:12AM (#13388847) Journal
    Michael Robertson

    Quote "But there's something much more noteworthy about the announcement. Google is agreeing to connect to other networks - something the big three instant messaging companies have refused to do. My company, SIPphone, has agreed to join into a federation with Google to use open standards and allow our customers to trade instant messages and voice calls. "

    That's from the latest newsletter, which will eventually be at http://www.michaelrobertson.com/index.php [michaelrobertson.com] when his webmaster gets off his ass and posts the latest one.

  • Janus Friis says No (Score:4, Informative)

    by zr-rifle ( 677585 ) <{moc.rdez} {ta} {rdez}> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @09:56AM (#13389198) Homepage
    Janus Friis of Skype just said the opposite:
     
      "We have potential, as the only IM (instant messaging) company focused on communications and as a result of our fast growth. We're very happy with our prospects as a standalone company. We've always meant this company to be for the long run. We're investing heavily in our infrastructure,"

    Link to story [yahoo.com]

  • Wow...Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by riversky ( 732353 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:08PM (#13390434)
    Google is turning into pure corporate evil. They are attempting to emulate Microsoft's behavior only with some tweaks by extending into everyones market and crushing them and making one NEED Google. Here in Europe where I am visiting there is a very strong feeling that Google is a American cultural danger to Europe and that MS and Google want to dominate the desktop and the internet. It looks in some ways that the fears are founded.

  • Skype's in the crosshairs, but not for a buyout (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DanEsparza ( 208103 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:41PM (#13390798) Homepage
    I don't think Google has any intention of aquiring Skype. Skype isn't SIP compliant, and while Skype might be more well known right now, SIP is a standard, and Google's own developer page highlights a desire to integrate with one of Skype's competitors, the Gizmo Project [gizmoproject.com]: http://www.google.com/talk/developer.html [google.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close