Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaz | Hacker News Reader

Sure, Microsoft could have built a skype clone in-house for far less than $8bn. But would people actually sign up and use it - to the tune of 124 million people per month? My guess is no, at least not for several quarters.

View on HN

> Microsoft could have built a skype clone in-house for far less than $8bn. But would people actually sign up and use it

Yes. MS has a massive installed base. If they can't leverage that to get people to use it, they are clearly incompetent.

Pre-antitrust days, that would be exactly what MS would have done. But it has been battered and bruised by the investigations and must have sworn to themselves "never again" will they ever devote managerial time to do what could have been solved by an outright purchase.

I think this is a key point. Ballmer has been hogtied with the fallout of the anti-trust stuff. Microsoft can't use it's "installed base" advantage in the same way it once could. We'll see how great Google does once it inevitably faces the same issue.

Actually, I think it is that whether bad memories can get institutionalised. If Balmer leaves, that body of bad memories will be gone, and people more willing to take risks again. We need to remember the software landscape has changed considerably. What might not be permissible of Microsoft in the 90s may now be fair game.

Hmm.. haven't Microsoft been forced to introduce the browser ballot not so long ago?

Yes, and I believe that includes email client etc. There is no reason why they can't do that with VOIP.

Windows Live Messenger has 330 million active users according to wikipedia, Microsoft could have improved it instead of the current bloated crap it currently is. If it was as lightweight as gtalk, provided voip capability and a good iphone app capability I would start using it and so would all those 330 million active users.

Agreed, Microsoft didn't over pay for the software, they over paid for the user-base. The user base is what you want.

Perhaps, but I thought Windows Live Messenger have a bigger user base already. Maybe I'm wrong though.

It does. The problem with WLM is that its US user base is somewhat smaller. And the US user base is pretty influential, especially in the mobile space.

$8.5B influential? Honestly, I don't see what $8.5B gets you that investing $500M in a Skype partnership wouldn't have.

I'd like to think they have some grand plan, but honestly I don't think so.

I think they're just sitting on a stack of cash and getting pressure from investors to spend the cash and grow.

They would have made it windows-only, tied it to a "live" account, perhaps tied it to xbox or wp7, then wondered why people weren't using it.

Exactly. Now I decided to stop using Skype.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com