Comments on: Separate the Skype Engine From the GUI http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/ A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:00:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Skype: Nearly Naked -- Alec Saunders .LOG http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-48723 Skype: Nearly Naked -- Alec Saunders .LOG Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:51:24 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-48723 [...] One of the most requested developer features for Skype is now part of the Skype 2.6 beta.  Called “Silent Mode” it allows you to switch off the visible Skype UI within your application.  It’s the first indication that Skype will allow developers to separate the UI from the engine, and deliver what Peeter Mõtsküla  referred to last April as Naked Skype. [...] [...] One of the most requested developer features for Skype is now part of the Skype 2.6 beta.  Called “Silent Mode” it allows you to switch off the visible Skype UI within your application.  It’s the first indication that Skype will allow developers to separate the UI from the engine, and deliver what Peeter Mõtsküla  referred to last April as Naked Skype. [...]

]]> By: Go Big, or Go Home. But Please, Spare Us The Whinging… -- Alec Saunders .LOG http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-33705 Go Big, or Go Home. But Please, Spare Us The Whinging… -- Alec Saunders .LOG Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:54:13 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-33705 [...] The platform isn’t as extensible as it could be.  Key API’s like Call Transfer are still missing.  The outdated COM object model for invoking the Skype client is a hassle to work with.  The fact that every application must invoke the client on the desktop is a constraint which prevents many new kinds of applications from developed.  The GUI should be separated from the engine. [...] [...] The platform isn’t as extensible as it could be.  Key API’s like Call Transfer are still missing.  The outdated COM object model for invoking the Skype client is a hassle to work with.  The fact that every application must invoke the client on the desktop is a constraint which prevents many new kinds of applications from developed.  The GUI should be separated from the engine. [...]

]]> By: Alex Kazim http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-7333 Alex Kazim Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:07:19 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-7333 Alec, So, agreed there are alternatives, but don't think this is easy. Royalties would work on hardware and shrink-wrap software, but you would have to sell a lot of SKU's to handle the expenses for even a small company like Skype. And software royalties feel more like a Playstation closed platform model vs. a Win or Mac one. Another issue is how to do this with Web Service applications. So, let's say I have a web site that has great content and I monetize through ads, but I choose to give away VoIP using the VoIP platform. Hard to determine a royalty in this case since the monetization is disconnected from the functionality. I'm not sure if anyone's cracked a model for Web Services yet. eBay tied to do this with the API by charging on a per call basis, but that was pretty tough for small developers to swallow. Skype In/Skype Out fees would work, but given the low margins, the developer would either have to charge a premium on top of that, or not make any money on that part of the service themselves. Pay for apps are definitely doable. But the platform has to walk the usual fine line of empowering the developer community while also competing with it. And of course, Om would give us an earful ;-) So net net, there are definitely models out there. Will be interesting to see if anyone can crack the code on it. Alec,

So, agreed there are alternatives, but don’t think this is easy.

Royalties would work on hardware and shrink-wrap software, but you would have to sell a lot of SKU’s to handle the expenses for even a small company like Skype. And software royalties feel more like a Playstation closed platform model vs. a Win or Mac one.

Another issue is how to do this with Web Service applications. So, let’s say I have a web site that has great content and I monetize through ads, but I choose to give away VoIP using the VoIP platform. Hard to determine a royalty in this case since the monetization is disconnected from the functionality.

I’m not sure if anyone’s cracked a model for Web Services yet. eBay tied to do this with the API by charging on a per call basis, but that was pretty tough for small developers to swallow.

Skype In/Skype Out fees would work, but given the low margins, the developer would either have to charge a premium on top of that, or not make any money on that part of the service themselves.

Pay for apps are definitely doable. But the platform has to walk the usual fine line of empowering the developer community while also competing with it. And of course, Om would give us an earful ;-)

So net net, there are definitely models out there. Will be interesting to see if anyone can crack the code on it.

]]> By: Alec http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-7163 Alec Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:19:00 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-7163 There are many possibilities, Alex: 1. A royalty from any developer who builds a product based on Skype. 2. Increased revenues from the models they currently use -- SkypeIn / SkypeOut, etc. 3. New pay-for applications from Skype itself etc... There are many possibilities, Alex:

1. A royalty from any developer who builds a product based on Skype.
2. Increased revenues from the models they currently use — SkypeIn / SkypeOut, etc.
3. New pay-for applications from Skype itself

etc…

]]> By: Alex Kazim http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-7162 Alex Kazim Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:30:19 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-7162 So, what then is the business model for the platform provider? So, what then is the business model for the platform provider?

]]> By: Coty's Weblog http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-7158 Coty's Weblog Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:02:40 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-7158 <strong>What Skype should really do</strong> Peeter Mõtsküla posted the provocatively titled Naked Skype? to the Skype Developer Zone Blog recently. Alec Saunders commented on that in the less pruriently but more descriptively titled post, Separate the Skype Engine From the GUI. This is somethi... What Skype should really do

Peeter Mõtsküla posted the provocatively titled Naked Skype? to the Skype Developer Zone Blog recently. Alec Saunders commented on that in the less pruriently but more descriptively titled post, Separate the Skype Engine From the GUI. This is somethi…

]]> By: Alec http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-6892 Alec Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:56:20 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-6892 i think i won that debate already... ;) i think i won that debate already… ;)

]]> By: Andrew http://saunderslog.com/2006/04/25/separate-the-skype-engine-from-the-gui/#comment-6859 Andrew Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:57:11 +0000 http://saunderslog.com/?p=2387#comment-6859 I couldn't have said it better myself ;) It would also end our 'debate' over platform vs. application.. http://saunderslog.com/2005/12/05/2091/ It makes so much sense, I can't believe it hasn't been done yet. I couldn’t have said it better myself ;)

It would also end our ‘debate’ over platform vs. application.. http://saunderslog.com/2005/12/05/2091/

It makes so much sense, I can’t believe it hasn’t been done yet.

]]>