I’m a huge user of Skype, as my friends and colleagues know. I’ve helped shift the management of several companies over to Skype as a productivity tool. One of the main reasons I use to promote Skype is the value of the seamless pyramid of communication: presence -> IM -> Voice. However, some factors are interfering with this value, and I think there’s a paradox in the direction Skype is taking.
To recap, here’s what’s good about the model:
- presence — I can see if someone is at their computer, or not. If they’re at their computer, it means there’s a good chance I can reach them if I need to communicate with them
- I can then IM them for simple matters, or to ask if they have time for a call. This is a much lower profile interruption than a ringing telephone, and therefore I feel freer to do it, and correspondingly do not mind it when people ping me
- If we want to talk, it’s just a push of the big green button
But, increasingly people are starting to access Skype from a mobile device that doesn’t have presence and IM capability. For example, this Netgear Skype phone which I have on order from Amazon (and which as Andy points out has some flaws as an out-of-the-home device).
For months I was trying to reach a friend in Italy via Skype IM. When I was over there recently, he said, “Oh, the server is up in the attic and I never look at the screen, but if you call it, it rings on my phone downstairs”. It turns out he permanently set his status to “online” and walked away. This breaks the model — presence no longer has meaning, and IM doesn’t work. You need to go straight to pressing the big Green “call” button. This is a huge step backwards from the virtuous pyramid I talked about above.
Yet, Skype seems to be accelerating this direction. Witness the recent move to offer free calling in North America (great link collection on this topic here). Witness the variety of Skype-enabled hardware coming. Combined with free urban wifi, these trends point to Skype being a free cellphone, not a Presence/IM/Voice platform.
I fear that you can’t be both. Both directions are interesting, both are worthwhile. But by trying to be both you degrade the value of the IM/presence network, and thus rob one group of users from the productivity gain they currently enjoy. It’s a bit of a conundrum, and I certainly don’t have the answer, but just watch if the value of your Skype presence indications doesn’t start to drop over the next year.
I think we can have it both ways. As for presence, the phones could have a quick way to set the “level of availability”, instead of presence. After all, even in Presence/IM, being “online” is not same as “available for IM”. Also, the level of availability in some ways gives information that one can get with an IM exchange.
I have been saying for some time that the value of presence is imagined. This has already happened because many IM clients allow “stealth” settings.
I agree that if you expand the presence from being merely, on-line/off-line/away/not available (a decidedly computer/IM-centric approach), you’d be able to have more richer choices such as “Away-Available” if I’m out of my office but available on my cell wherein IM would not be an option.
Being mobile does not have to mean not using presence attributes. Here at WiSPA we are one of those companies that allow Skype to be used from a user’s cell phone (or WiFi or landline phone). When a user makes a call over Skype from their phone.they are provided with the recipients presence status prior to confirming the call. They can receive their IM messages and soon will be able to reply. They can change their call forward status which changes their presence and many other presence related features are being developed to extend mobility control. Presence must not be restricted to a desktop/PC approach - and to WiSPA, Skype mobility is about communications, of which presence is a critical component, and not just low cost calls.
Certainly “mood messages” can wisely be employed to encourage or discourage presence and availability for calls/IM.
I don’t agree that Skype’s identity is “presence - IM - talk”. If that’s really the “core” of Skype, then Skype will not last long - because Yahoo IM and MS Messenger can simply add voice communication. Actually Yahoo IM and MSN both have VoIP capability, and also video (using webcam)!
The introduction of Skype phones like that Netgear thing, is to show that Skype will try to replace our present traditional long distance call service. SkypeOut is the key, I think. Imagine old grandma living far away, I can buy her a Netgear Skype phone. I help her sign up Skype and buy them some SkypeOut credits. She can call me easily - without using computer!
However, I could see this competition between SkypeOut, Yahoo Voice Out, and even Gizmo Call Out, to become a price competition in the end. But I see Skype is trying to utilize its first (fast) mover position, and having more aliances (e.g. with telcos) to strengthen itself.