Skype's guerilla roots calling service

Tweet


By PETER SVENSSON , AP Technology Writer

Skype has guerilla roots, still has room to grow in phones and TV videoconferencing

A Microsoft and Skype sign are displayed at a news conference in San Francisco Tuesday, May 10, 2011, announcing Microsoft's acquisition of Skype. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

In buying Skype, Microsoft is getting one of the rare companies that has turned its name into a verb, like Xerox or Google. "Let's Skype" is a phrase understandable, with slight translation, in much of the world.
 

NEW YORK: Skype is one of the rare companies that has turned its name into a verb, like Xerox or Google. "Let's Skype" is a phrase understandable, with slight translation, in much of the world.

For most people, it means sitting in front of your computer to talk, often for free. Four out of 10 times, there are cameras involved too, turning the session into a video chat.

The service has become popular for long, rambling chats with distant friends and relatives. Children too young to talk on the phone can still be entranced by the image of Grandma on the computer screen.

"Skype really is that inner circle, that inner set of social experiences," CEO Tony Bates said.
Skype bypasses the traditional phone system by routing calls and video over the Internet, just like e-mail and webpages.

The calls vault effortlessly over national borders, ignoring the fences that phone companies put up in the form of international calling charges. Usernames take the place of phone numbers.

Calling from computer to computer is free. Skype charges for calls to phone numbers on the traditional phone network.

It also charges for getting a phone number associated with your Skype username, so people can call you from regular phones.

Skype wasn't the first to offer phone calls over the Internet when it launched in 2003, but the way it did it was unique and rebellious.

It relied on a technology that had already disrupted the music industry - peer-to-peer file sharing, in which computers connect to share things directly, without an intermediary vulnerable to legal action.

The founders, Niklas Zennstrom, a Swede, and Janus Friis, a Dane, had run a peer-to-peer filesharing network called Kazaa.


They sold it to an Australian company in 2002 after coming under intense legal pressure from the entertainment industry, which accused Kazaa of facilitating the theft of millions of copyright-protected songs and videos.

The Australian company ended up fighting long battles in court, while Zennstrom and Friis walked away.
The pair turned their efforts instead toward applying the peer-to-peer principle to communications.

Peer to peer

This was the genius of Skype: Thanks to peer-to-peer technology, it could get started with very little investment.

The heavy lifting of running the network - figuring out how to find users and connecting their calls - was mostly done by the users' computers.

With very low costs, Zennstrom and Friis could afford to give the software away, feeding its popularity.
As Skype grew, eBay Inc came calling. In 2005, it bought the company for US$2.6bil (RM7.8bil at today's exchange rate), with a plan to integrate it into its auction site.

The synergies never materialised. Skype languished under eBay, with a rapid succession of CEOs.
Despite low operating costs, revenue was small; just a few percent of active users paid any money to Skype. Those who did were mostly Europeans, as they made a lot more international calls. In the United States, state-to-state calls are already cheap.

In 2007, eBay had to write down much of Skype's value. Two years later, eBay sold two-thirds of Skype to an investor group that included Zennstrom and Friis for roughly US$2bil (RM6bil today).

Microsoft is buying the company for US$8.5bil (RM25.5bil) - three times what eBay had valued it at. The software company sees in Skype a way to support its own products.

Skype still has room to grow on phones, including those running Microsoft's Windows software.
Skype has been slow in getting onto cellphones, which have seen explosive growth since Skype was founded. Cellphone companies feared that allowing Skype on phones would hurt revenue by letting callers save their minutes.

Sea change

The phone companies came around slowly after US regulators started to take an interest in Skype's complaints.

AT&T said in late 2009 that it would allow Skype calls over its wireless network. Since then, the other major carriers have joined, figuring that Skype calls are a way to sell data plans.

Another area Skype has a foothold but no dominance is the living room. TVs are increasingly connected to the Internet. Panasonic and Samsung TVs come with the capability to do Skype video chats, but no built-in cameras.

"It's an area where we'd like it just to be easier," Bates said. Today, Skype's technology doesn't give it much of an advantage over competing services. Video-chatting software isn't hard to create.

What Skype does have is a big user base - the roughly 170 million people who have the software installed, know how to use it and tell each other "to Skype."

Competitors have to replicate that user base somehow because communications software is only as good as the number of people you can contact with it.

Google Inc is trying. Its Gmail service has more than 190 million users and serves as a springboard for voice and video chats. It can even be used to place calls to phone lines, just like Skype.

Other competitors are piggybacking on the popularity of Facebook, which has more than 500 million active users. T-Mobile USA, the No 4 cellphone company in the United States, launched software that lets Facebook friends call one another.

Facebook could adopt Skype itself, or launch its own calling service. In 10 years, people might still say "Skype me," but the actual call might use some other software entirely. - AP

Why the 1Malaysia agenda is important?

Tweet

CERITALAH by KARIM RASLAN

In the country’s current political climate, the hardliners seem to be gaining ground as the moderate voices are drowned out. Despite the gloom, one positive factor stands out – the overall good sense and moderation of Malaysians. 

ON MAY 7, Utusan Malaysia carried yet another explosive front-page article reporting on a meeting of church leaders in Penang with the headline “Kristian Agama Rasmi?” (Is Christianity the Official Religion?).

The article and the polemic that followed marks a new low in Malaysian public life as we struggle to cope with competing visions of how our nation should be constituted, ordered and run.

There are five main points that I would like to make about the incident and what it says about Malay­sia’s current political situation.

Firstly – and this is self-evident – the Malay hardliners are gaining ground as moderate voices are drowned out.

Whilst many of us are sceptical about Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s 1Malaysia agenda, events like this underline its importance to the nation as a whole.

Still, there is a mounting consensus within Umno, especially after the Sarawak state polls, that non-Malay votes, especially the Chinese, will not return to Barisan Nasional.



As such, an alternative strategy is being proposed, namely that Umno should focus exclusively on the Malay heartlands.

Amidst such thinking, ideas such as nation-building across racial and religious lines are becoming increasingly passé and irrelevant.

Of course, this approach is fundamentally flawed. More importantly, the Malay community is itself deeply divided.

A rock-solid block of Malay voters – an estimated 30% – are committed PAS supporters. They will never vote for Umno.

In the past, this reality forced Umno to occupy the middle ground, canvassing for non-Malay votes in order to control the Dewan Rakyat.

Ironically, the political terrain has been upended so much so that PAS seems to have assumed Umno’s more conciliatory and inclusivist stance.

Secondly, the growing might and confidence of the hardliners also means that Barisan’s ethos of give-and-take is slowly but steadily falling apart. This is very dangerous, especially since such “winner-takes-all” views are already feeding into the civil service.

The steady decline in understanding and mutual cooperation across racial and religious lines will in­evitably eat away at Barisan’s once un­shakeable hold of Sabah and Sarawak’s non-Muslim bumiputra communities, most of whom are staunch Christians.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that once the culture of shared aspirations and tolerance is lost it will be hard for Barisan to retain the support of other minorities.

Exclusivism, once adopted, has a pernicious impact on intra-commu­­­nity relations.

As such, it remains to be seen whether the Indian community will truly remain in Barisan’s embrace right up to election day.

The third point concerns PAS’ future intentions. Many in Umno now view PAS as their logical electoral partner.

They see this alliance as one that would unite the Malays, whilst ousting the difficult and overly demanding non-Malay communities.

However, this view ignores decades of mutual antipathy and loathing between the two majority Malay parties.

I cannot envisage a scenario in which Tok Guru Nik Aziz (Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat) could ever work with Umno. Moreover, I’m not sure Tok Guru Hadi Awang (Datuk Seri Hadi Awang) would settle for the post of Deputy Prime Minister.

In short, PAS smells power and is playing to win.

Fourthly, as these political alignments continue to shift and public rhetoric becomes ever shriller, you can guarantee that many Malaysians will vote with their feet.

The uncertainty and the ugliness of the debate gnaws away at business confidence. Malaysia’s brain drain, as reported by the World Bank, and capital flight will only accelerate.

Unfortunately, the more open and free-wheeling environment has revealed the inadequacy of Umno’s cadres in explaining and winning over middle Malaysia.

Having grown up with a compliant mainstream media, they are unable to debate issues of substance with the opposition head-to-head.

Finally, before the gloom becomes too oppressive, I have to stress one positive factor, namely the overall good sense and moderation of the Malaysian people – you, out there.

Thankfully, most of you have switched off from politics. I guess you are too busy trying to manage the impact of spiralling commodity and oil prices to care.

Whatever the case, I salute you – you have prevented our nation from falling apart.

JPA Managing scholars is incompetent!

Tweet

Lin Ern Sheong -JPA scholarship: A bond-free scholarship for young Malaysians

I am currently a 4th year student at the University of California, Berkeley. I am also a JPA scholar.  (JPA stands for Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, or the Public Service Department of Malaysia.)

While I am thankful for the JPA Scholarship, I could not fail to note the lackadaisical method which JPA employs to ensure that its scholars return home and serve the nation after graduation, especially those who are not in the fields of medicine and law.

Many JPA-sponsored students I know have not returned home upon graduation from overseas institutions.
The story would go like this. The JPA scholar reports to Putrajaya after graduation, and then tries to apply for jobs with the Government. If he does not hear back from JPA within 12 months, he is released from his 6-year bond with the Government. There is no need to pay back.

I suspect that many scholars do not even report home, but go on chasing their own dreams abroad immediately after graduation.

Indeed, many do not hear from the Government within 12 months. I have also heard of JPA scholars who genuinely wanted to serve the Government but could not, because JPA was unable to give them any postings.

For this very reason, the JPA Scholarship has become a much sought after scholarship. It is effectively a bond-free scholarship! This is a far cry compared to scholarships from other Malaysian corporations such as Petronas, Khazanah and Bank Negara, which are strict with its scholars when it comes to returning home after studying abroad.

It doesn’t make sense to spend hundreds of thousands of ringgit per scholar and then let them do whatever they want after graduation. I have been having a hard time explaining to those of other nationalities why my scholarship’s bond is pretty much nonexistent, despite the fact that so much money is spent by the Government.

Since the incorporation of TalentCorp, things might have changed, as there are now more job openings in the private sector for returning scholars. The question is, has anything really changed?

Hitherto, the JPA Scholarship has been an avenue for brain drain — right under the Government’s nose. If JPA does not have enough jobs for its scholars, they should at least enforce that scholars are to work within the country for 6 years, or else pay the Government back.

Otherwise, I would have to come to the logical conclusion that the JPA Scholarship was meant to encourage Malaysia’s brain drain.

Ideally, the JPA Scholarship should serve the purpose of harnessing Malaysia’s best talent for the public service of the nation.

* Lin Ern Sheong hails from Petaling Jaya and is proud be Malaysian, at home or abroad. He is currently studying Physics and Electrical Engineering in the United States.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication.

Managing scholars

I REFER to Lin Ern Sheong’s letter above.

The topic of JPA scholars returning to Malaysia upon graduation has been a much discussed topic.
However, aside from establishing TalentCorp, it seems that no other concrete action has been taken to ensure that an appropriate action plan is executed to assist scholars with placements in industries.

Being a JPA scholar and currently working in one of the ministries, I have encountered numerous types of JPA scholars: those who returned and wanted to serve the Government as officers; those who returned and wanted to contribute their knowledge in a relevant field of study; those who did not want to serve their bonds; those who refused to return home on graduation; and those who wanted to serve the Government only if the jobs offered were related to their field of study, among others.

These JPA scholars clearly indicate that there must be a well-planned programme to cater for them upon graduation.

Every year, JPA scholarships are awarded to thousands of applicants and suffice to say, keeping track of each applicant is an arduous task.

But, regardless of this, it should not be a reason for our nonchalance in keeping track of the progress of each student, particularly those studying overseas.

With the introduction of the Government Transformation Programme and the reiteration on the importance of Return of Investment, it would only be appropriate if a specific programme, to ensure that these students are placed appropriately in the industry and their talent tapped, is initiated.

Although TalentCorp has been established, it is not an enforcing body (which in my opinion is JPA) and its aim spreads across a continuum of objectives such as trying to get researchers, scientists and professionals working overseas to return.

But there is a need to cater to the placement of scholars upon graduation. Even if they’re not working for the Government, at least ensure that they are working in Malaysia so that the knowledge gained overseas is of good use.

The initiative can even include a technology and knowledge transfer programme that allows these scholars to transfer the knowledge they gained overseas to local industries.

These are my personal opinions but I’m sure the enforcing body, that has been involved in sponsoring students locally and overseas, is more adept in proposing a thorough action plan.

I was a JPA scholar and I graduated as an engineer from one of the best universities in the United States and now, I am working as a diplomatic and administrative officer.

Many of my friends, who are in the same position as I, have either quit or are going to quit because they were not offered permanent positions as officers, and neither were they offered positions as research officers, science officers or engineers.

In short, the talents are not managed in a proper manner and it seems that whether these scholars return or not did not make any difference.

We, the scholars, are left to find our own ways and means to free ourselves from this contractual bondage so that we can expand our knowledge and industrial experience.

I, being one of them, am currently looking for opportunities to pursue my higher level degree overseas. This time, I might choose not to return.

AN OPINIONATED SCHOLAR,
Malacca

The rich, the good and the ugly

Tweet

SOMETIMES, we get the impression that people of a certain social class must know one another quite well.

So when we talk about the super-duper rich, we presume that they not only appear on the same Forbes list each year, but they probably have each other's private numbers on their smartphones.

And it does not really matter which country they come from, or which industry they belong to, because their extreme wealth is the common denominator.

So if you look at the richest men on the 2011 list, you can imagine Bill Gates, at No 2, giving Lakshmi Mittal of India, at No 4, a call that goes something like this, “Hi, Mittal, how much richer are you since I last called? Steel prices are rising but I am not doing too bad myself. Microsoft just dished out US$8.5 bil to buy up Skype. Small change, my man!”

But what is the reality? I suspect that while the pursuit of money drives these people, and they may share mutual public platforms, real friendship among them may not be as common as we think.

Gates and Warren Buffett recently brought together 61 American billionaires to a resort in Tuscon but it was not so much a gathering of old friends but total strangers.

Buffett reportedly knew only 12 of those invited though by the end of the evening, he had made 40 new friends.

The one thing in common for these ultra-rich philanthropists is that they belong to the special club of people who had pledged to give away at least half of their wealth under the Giving Pledge initiated by Buffett and Gates.


So what did these people talk about all evening? Apparently, since there was no real bond of friendship, they saw the meeting as a chance to “meet each other, compare notes, eat and laugh.” At least that's what the Associated Press pieced together by talking to a few of the diners after the event, which was totally off-limits to the press.

When my growing-up boys asked me about the important and rich people whom journalists get to meet in the course of work, I used to tell them that, like the rest of us, “the men pee standing, and have to put on their trousers one leg at a time.”

It was my way to remind them that there are more important things that make up a person's worth than wealth and position.

But there is no denying that these philanthropists have the potential to initiate sea changes if they put their hearts in the right place.

And it is good that other rich people around the world, including in Malaysia, are also embracing this concept of giving away part of one's wealth to address the world's many problems.

I was pleasantly surprised that our very own Dr Jane Cardosa, one of the three dynamic Cardosa sisters with roots in Convent Green Lane and Penang Free School, is a recent recipient of a US$100,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to further her research into a vaccine for polio and hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD).

Hopefully, we will see more Malaysian philanthropic ringgit being made available to produce positive social returns.

Maybe someone should propose a study on how to eliminate the bigots and extremists in our midst who seek to build walls that divide, rather than bridges that unite.

And a further study on foot-in-the-mouth disease, which seems to be pretty rampant among the politicians.

Deputy executive editor Soo Ewe Jin realises that there is much good on the Internet that allows us to connect with worthy causes. But it seems that Malaysian misuse of cyberspace is what gets us the headlines.

Innovation Takes Real Effort, Even For Startups

Tweet

Martin Zwilling 

Image via Wikipedia

It seems to be an accepted fact these days that big companies normally innovate by buying a startup with innovative products, rather than focusing on in-house innovations. This is a good thing for entrepreneurs and investors, who can win big, but it’s not a given. I see many startups who seem satisfied with a “me too” approach, building yet another social network or e-commerce site, rather than being truly innovative.

Much has been published on this subject, including a new book “Look at More: A Proven Approach to Innovation, Growth, and Change” by Andy Stefanovich, which is really a guide to established companies for unleashing creativity within their organizations. He asserts that the problem is lack of inspiration, and he supports this with twenty years of real case studies from his own experience.

The good news is that most entrepreneurs and startups have more inspiration than almost anything else, and it sometimes leads to success despite their lack of resources and business skills. Yet even entrepreneurs need to focus on the most effective way to unleash innovation, and maximize their chances for success.


Andy offers a simple mantra for innovation, expressed as “Look at more stuff; think about it harder.” This mantra is complemented by a framework known as the five M’s, which are five key principles for unleashing creativity in any environment:

• Mood. Inspiration and creativity requires the right context of attitudes, feelings, and emotions. Every business leader who wants innovation must constantly monitor and set the proper mood for the environment. You can set the right mood by purposefully disrupting the status quo, initiating change, asking provocative questions, and listening.

• Mindset. This is the intellectual foundation of creativity, the baseline capacity each of us has for getting inspired, staying inspired, and thinking differently. Four thinking disciplines which produce a creative, inspired mindset include changing your perspective, taking risks, finding your passion, and challenging assumptions to embrace ambiguity.

• Mechanisms. These are the tools and processes of creativity that help you engineer inspiration into the way you work and empower your organization to embrace the kind of behavior that fosters innovation. Four key steps include building a context, generating ideas, filtering ideas, and building a blueprint for implementing the best ideas.

• Measurement. Even creativity needs guidance and critical feedback on the qualitative and quantitative performance of individuals and organizations. Measurements send a strong signal of what is important and where people should focus their passion and energy. In addition to measuring results, you need to measure mood, mindset, and the mechanisms above.

• Momentum. This is accomplished by the active championing and celebrating of inspiration and creativity that foster a self-reinforcing cycle for increasing innovation. Momentum is an organizational priority for inspired leaders who have a clear understanding of the other four M’s.

Not everyone has to be a leader for innovation to work. Research has indicated that followers are just as important to consider as leaders when thinking about creating the mood and momentum for creativity, inspiration, and innovation. Likewise, the right mindset alone isn’t enough. You have to be able to convince others and sell your ideas.

Thus, even entrepreneurs must not assume that their efforts and their team will be creative and innovative. “Me too” startups don’t get funded, and they certainly don’t get bought for a premium by the sleeping giants who are looking for outside innovation to kick-start their growth again. Thus I suggest that every entrepreneur and every startup review their own environments for the five M’s, to avoid getting tagged as a “has been” before they even “have been.”

Newscribe : get free news in real time