Skype Deliberately Crippling Functionality of iPhone and WinMo and Verizon Apps?
from the New!-Improved!-Exclusive!-Broken! dept
There's something anti-competitive afoot in the 'VoIP over 3G' space this year. Let me run you through a timeline, and see if you can't spot the dirty pool:- Skype has had a highly functional VoIP client for Windows Mobile devices for a few years. It allowed smartphone customers to use most features of Skype over WiFi OR a carrier's cellular data network. It was distributed around the carriers direct to customers of Skype, and was designed for those customers' benefit.
- March 2009: Skype on iPhone is launched, but is unable to do VoIP over the 3G data channel because AT&T and Apple blocked that functionality. Skype, Google, the FCC, and consumers cried "foul" at AT&T and Apple.
- Oct. 2009: After considerable FCC and consumer pressure, AT&T relents, and allows VoIP over 3G (and was even publicly applauded by Skype's CEO Josh Silverman). Skype users, naturally, expect an updated Skype version that will leverage 3G data.
- Jan 16, 2010: Skype releases a new iPhone version which DOESN'T take advantage of the new leeway AT&T (and ostensibly Apple) allow for VoIP over 3G. Skype points fingers, mostly back at Apple.
- Jan 27, 2010: Apple removes any 3G VoIP restrictions. Now there is nothing holding Skype from doing VoIP over 3G on iPhone.
- Mid Feb, 2010: At MWC in Barcelona, Verizon and Skype announce a special version of the Skype app that will run on Verizon. While most press outlets rejoice at the "openness" Verizon wireless is finally showing, it turns out to be a limited, crippled version, which is designed to fit Verizon's agenda, NOT customer wishes. This version can use the 3G data network, but just for chat and 'control', not for voice. It requires a >$10/mo data plan, is not available for phones with Wi-Fi, and 'Skype out' cannot be used to make domestic phone calls. In this deal, it appears that VZW paid Skype for some exclusivity in the USA.
- Mid-Feb, 2010: Also at MWC, Skype CEO Silverman tells Om Malik that we can expect 3G VoIP on iPhone "Very soon", with no firm commitment.
- Feb. 26, 2010: Skype completely pulls it's very functional Windows Mobile apps with little explanation, and no suggestion of when they might return. The app, which works fine, just goes away. Why pull the most functional Skype mobile app and leave only crippled versions?
Looking at the timeline above, it's pretty easy to guess what's going on here. Skype has been negotiating with Verizon Wireless for some exclusive deal in the USA. But unlike the relatively good, open Skype deal enjoyed by Hutch "3" subscribers in the UK, the Verizon version is crippled with confusing limitations, complications, conditions. It's clear the Verizon goal is to use Skype to upsell data plans to users who don't yet have one, and to drive or retain Minutes of Use of cellular voice traffic. Skype just sold its US mobile users down the river! Skype still promotes "Skype Mobile" on its US web pages, but if you click on any OS like Android or Blackberry, you'll see the bold headline "Coming Soon: Skype on America's most reliable wireless network." And are basically told to wait for the exclusive product.
The only reason Skype offered for retracting the WinMo app is "because we want to offer our new customers an improved mobile experience – much like the version that has proved so popular on the iPhone..." Wait...Is that the same version that annoyed users because it couldn't do VoIP on 3G? And how does killing a product with no replacement offer an "improved mobile experience"? Seems like more of an absent mobile experience.
Going forward, this also could position Skype well for offering a premium paid version of a fully functional app at a future date, when exclusive deals expire. A freemium model would be less unsavory than the exclusive/crippled structure that we apparently have for now. At least with freemium, the free market can choose to pay or not from any given carrier. With the exclusive/crippled structure, customers have little choice - except the choice to use another VoIP provider who is focused on giving end users what they want.
The result of this exclusive deal is, essentially, to deprive an entire country of the value of a good VoIP service (Skype) on mobile phones, and instead to offer us a crippled version that is designed not to delight any user, but to delight a carrier. How ironic, then, that Skype's Silverman has been at the forefront of the push for more "open" networks:
"Nonetheless, the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers. We're all looking forward to further developments that will let people use Skype on any device, on any network."or when he said this from a September lobby trip to DC:
"We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to phone calls delivered over data networks and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. And as many members of the Internet community and key congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness."Compelling reasons, indeed. It seems that in this case, AT&T actually followed through with their promises to be more "open" while Skype and Verizon have just painted a big "open" sign on the gates of the walled garden. Enter at your own risk.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Did they?
Nothing technically, but has Skype done anything with this? (I've avoided it since it seemed rather pointless.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skype is scum
They also confirmed Skype for Windows Mobile will be available, but only for carriers who sign a deal with them.
Skype= lying scum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In effect, the app is not connection agnostic, but prefers certain pipes over others. This is done in no way to benefit the user, but to meet the business models of the carriers and Skype. While this is not as anti-competitive as a non-neutral monopoly network, it is close enough to be sadly ironic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kickback?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kickback?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the Governements Fault!
What does this imply for unregulated net-neutrality? Clearly these companies cannot be trusted to freely abide by net-neutrality concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't seriously be saying that as the runners of a proprietary VOIP network which is part of what has allowed this crappyness to come about in the first place.
It's all gone downhill for openness in net communication since email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares about Skype?
What are the bright minds in the open source community doing to help bring this about? Are their projects like this already that we just haven't heard of.
Not everyone wants to or needs to embrace this openness allowed by the removal of these restrictions, but I'm sure we can find some intelligent people who can work something out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares about Skype?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(pro tocol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares about Skype?
However, I don't suggest we need to sue Skype or regulate Skype. I merely suggest that some people might want to seek out alternatives that aren't trying to manipulate our use.
They are absolutely within their rights, but so are customers who choose alternatives. That's how the market should work.
You asked about open standards, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK deal
Got any info on this "deal" ?
Because after playing around with my nokia 3 mobile phone this weekend discovered something interesting, the "skype client" on 3 is not actually a skype client but rather a iskoot client (even though it puts skype logo's everywhere to make it look like a skype client) that hooks into the "skype network".
And same as the verizon situation it only uses the 3G network for chat and control, voice is handled via the normal telephone network, basiclly all skype incoming and outgoing call's are routed via a 3 mobile number and from there passed to skype voip network via iskoot software (though this system is actually pretty good, even if you have poor 3G reception, the call quality is still perfect as long as normal cell signal is good) and multiple features of the normal mobile skype client are disabled, like skype msg to SMS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UK deal
The key is around availability, limitations, billing, and pricing. The Verizon service is only available on their smartphones in which they previously crippled out the wifi, it is limited in that you cannot may a Skype call to the USA, it is tied to increased billing for a minimum data plan (which it barely uses).
But you may be right. The Hutch version also appears somewhat limited, but not to the extent of ours over on this side of the pond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use alternatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkle_%28software%29
http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SIP_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use alternatives
http://sipdroid.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't get
You know all those (millions and millions) of AT&T commercials that play up the fact that you can talk and surf at the same time? If Verizon treated voice as Data, wouldn't I be able to surf and talk at the same time?
Maybe I'm missing something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use Fring and Nimbuzz to access and use my Skype account exactly as if I was using Skype on my home desktop.
Free voip calls from anywhere, anytime! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-competitive?
Verizon owns its network, and should be allowed to dictate who can use it, and for what purpose. Skype can choose to market any product it wishes.
You think differently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-competitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-competitive?
But as I said, VoIP IS a competitive market, and there are many options, as the commenters in this thread have indicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-competitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not think that word means what you think it means
@18 Skype is free to NOT sign a deal with a carrier that requires an exclusive; what you are describing is actually "competitive"
@19 Two companies deciding to raise prices is not "anti-competitive," it's "competitive." "Anti-competition" requires government intervention into free markets, and I see none of that here. Skype and Verizon are in business to make money; If you feel screwed by their plans, then start your own carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skype over 3G will come with iPhone OS 3.2
http://www.google.com/search?q=skype+iphone+os+3.2
How hard was that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Skype over 3G will come with iPhone OS 3.2
There was this, which I think you are getting at:
http://www.ziphone.org/2010/02/coming-soon-skype-iphone-app-for-3g.html
But if you read that post, I think you see a February 3 perspective, before the Verizon deal. Heck, back in September, Skype was the champion of open networks and equal access to all content and services. Things can change.
Let me put it this way. There is nothing in that article, or anywhere, that promises the Skype over 3G functionality by any date. I think it may be delayed or offered in some new crippled fashion. Or on limited devices.
I'm already well-aware of the "promise" of Skype over 3G. I'm just skeptical of the will to execute, given recent developments. Shall I prove it? Read the article, and specifically bullet #6. How hard was that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should MegaCarrier just shut down?
You really think that the phone companies will continue to build out their networks if you (and the rest of the U.S.) buys the $10/month plan and yacks away unlimited?
Then you complain when the MegaCo phone company says "either you STOP this bull-cookie behaviour or we STOP building our WiMAX towers, fiber expansions, data routing/caching/storage Internal Network Upgrades!!"
Sounds like "whaaaa, I can't get it for free!". It costs a great deal of money to build out the VoIP and wireless infrastructure that you want to pay $10/month to ride.
VoIP kills the cell phone price model. Cool. Enjoy the rush for the next 18 months. The phone companies response will be to kill (or THROTTLE) data and ports to anyone not on their new $60/month data plan.
So you can get a cheap Voice ride now on the $20/month data-plan, but expect as Skype takes off, the data plans will go up to $60/month to cover the massive losses in your new "I've found a way to beat the cell phone company!" game.
To quote a talking head from a dying, legacy industry, "And that's the Way it Was".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should MegaCarrier just shut down?
However, not one part of that argument (which you espouse above) serves as an excuse for taking a good product, crippling it, and trying to FOOL your customers into thinking it is something it is not.
If you don't sack up and offer VoIP, then don't try to trick your subscribers into thinking you are. And don't "salt the fields" of the market with exclusives that prevent other players in the market from offering a good version of Skype.
BTW, I'm not lashing out at Verizon primarily in this article. If you didn't notice, I save most of the invective for the "Free service" company that turned their coat inside out and sold out. Lobby congress for openness, and then cripple your product as part of an exclusive from one carrier? Bah!
I want these companies to do straight dealing, tell the truth, and be forced by the market pressure to build products that the market wants. We need an informed market for that to occur. Hence, my article.
If you interpret that as "whaaaa, I can't get it for free!", then that's just a comprehension fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proprietary format
Plus, cell-phone carriers as well as cable companies and other telecommunication sector businesses should be regulated more tightly since they have too much power to either restrict or overcharge for new technologies for the sake of their own vested interests. Free market ideology doesn't seem to work well in the telecommunication sector, with in many places virtually complete monopolies and conflicting interests...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new age of greed just keeps getting greedier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]