There’s a lot of talk around the blogosphere about Skype going SIP, especially in light of all their Joltid problems. People who are avid SIP advocates in our VoIP industry see this as a sign that Skype should (and will) migrate their service to SIP soon. I don’t see it coming.
Any reason for Skype to adopt SIP?
Andy Abramson wrote, a month ago, that he likes Google Talk’s concept of a browser-based video client, but he believes Skype is winning the game due to their size:
Personally, I like the idea of a browser based video client, but right now, Skype is winning the battle on the desktop for video because of one thing. The size of their user base. To firmly win that battle all Skype has to do is become SIP based and then everything works and talks to it. When that day comes, and I predict it will, it will be a big day forward for IP based Communications and Video calling will become as common as voice calls are today.
As much as I like Andy Abramson, there are two things here that don’t make sense to me:
1. Google Talk isn’t Browser Based
Well, it is, but its video solution isn’t “pure” browser- it requires downloading a plugin/extension/add-on/application/call-it-what-you-like. It makes the decision-making process of the user debating on whether to use the service almost as complicated as any other desktop client application.
Today’s browsers don’t allow for real-time video communication that is adequate for video conferencing – it’s a latency issue.
2. Skype in SIP is a Suicide for Skype
Skype moving to SIP the whole way makes their service interchangeable with any other VoIP provider out there – no “special” glue to stick their customers to the service.
What Skype are doing instead is building bridges in the form of Skype for SIP, where they control their own network and the connectivity to it.
What Does This Say About Video?
Skype are best positioned to increase the video calling market. They have the user base and the application in place. They are moving the focus to video with their latest version.
What they are missing is a hardware-based solution that can fill in the missing gap that they have on their way to an enterprise video solution. I’d say that they are still far away from this specific task, but the work they are doing in bringing video to the masses is important.
“Skype moving to SIP the whole way makes their service interchangeable with any other VoIP provider out there – no “special” glue to stick their customers to the service.”
I do not agree with this reasoning. Firstly their so-called special glue is their user base. Secondly moving to SIP does not necessarily mean that their service is interchangeable with other VoIP providers. They could easily block foreign domains from placing SIP calls to their network. Using an open standard is not the same as having an open network.
I do agree with your statement though: I do not see Skype use SIP as their core protocol somewhere in the near future.
Interesting thoughts. Having done some thinking about this I posted my thoughts on a new blog:
http://telecommusings.blogspot.com/
I have questions about Skype for SIP being truly useful. I like the idea of using SILK, Skype’s high-quality audio codec, for my calls. Skype for SIP – and Skype for Asterisk – are both low-quality only, namely G.729A for the former and G.729A/G.711 for the latter. Frankly, I’m more excited about the “hack” of using Skype for FreeSWITCH. The price is right and it allows callers to use high quality voice codecs.
Thanks for posting your thoughts. This is a good dialogue to have.
-MC
@Eelco – since our conclusion this time is the same, I am happy
@Michael – the point in Skype for SIP is enlarging the users base you can interact with through your SIP phone (and that small issue of being a carrier for long distance calls which can save headaches to small businesses).