Ben Horowitz on the Skype acquisition
bhorowitz.com
bhorowitz.com
re: Microsoft + Skype:
Microsoft knows how to make a ton of money.
Microsoft is looking at an explosion of CPU cores on desktop computers. What are we going to be using those cores for? Embarrassingly parallel problems like 3D rendering, OS eye candy and video processing and compression. Multi user HD video chat is going to be happening really soon for really cheap. That's quite disruptive. (See Telepresence systems) [1]
The more peer to peer nodes that are added to the Skype network, the better the product. If Windows ships a Skype client turned on by default with every OS and copy of Office it sells... that peer to peer network starts to look like BitTorrent in size.
Cisco currently charges $300k for a telepresence room. Their 37" telepresence system runs about $50k last I checked. Skype chats just got blessed as an enterprise system. There's a _lot_ of money to be made here.
My nieces and nephews are in 3 different countries and about 6 different states. Every night, they live on Skype, and video chat for free. When I grew up in Central America in the 70's, a phone call to the US was $3/min.
Microsoft no longer has government oversight from the anti-trust settlement... Things might just get interesting.
ref: [1] http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7060/index.html
Yes, but only out of Windows & Office. It's been a while since they've been able to expand into other areas.
E.g., their online division typically loses >$500M.
Wow. This and the comments about how much Skype's user base has grown since Google and Apple began competing in the same space are very interesting. Plainly, someone is wrong about the value of Skype (see the other stories submitted to HN about this transaction, for the clash in points of view) but just maybe the investors who just sold Skype to Microsoft are right.
A key determinant of the value of this acquisition is how well they can execute the integration of Skype with their other products.
Of course, ultimately exploiting that will depend on people using Skype as their primary way to make calls. And somehow keeping other means of communication from supplanting the phone call.
And since 2010 has been referred to as the year we stopped talking to each other, this investment still may not work out. Even the most basic calling plans give most people way more minutes than they can use.
Will heavy users and international callers spend enough to make it work? Or will international calls one day be as seamlessly made as domestic ones?
There is a strong small business contingent stuck on Outlook though, and if MS integrates with that, they should have no problem selling lots and lots of paid, higher quality business use minutes.
Edit: Down-votes or not, please keep in mind that the business model of a venture capitalist is to make an investment and sell it at a future time for a profit. There seems to be a negative connotation around the term "flip", but the reality is that there is significant risk to being a "flipper." Horowitz took an enormous risk and he was rewarded for his "flip".
Further, flip is extremely negative. VCs who do this for a living don't get very far.
I remember being lectured repeatedly about this. "are you building a company or a burger?"
Your use of terminology gives me the impression you have gathered your understanding from blog posts.
Standard disclaimer: I am both an investor in a16z and invested in them. Along with a number of other firms on both sides.
And I'm cool with that. Good for Ben.
Skypr has publically been on an IPO path for a while, and that is no flip.
IP lawsuit was resolved, the Skype network effects continued to work, the economy changed, is there anything else? It doesn't seem to me like much value was created inside the company for these 18 months, more like the perception of potential buyers changed.