Two hypocrites in a garage
Google and Skype have been the two biggest advocates of the mythical “Two guys in a garage” and they have said it often enough to make us think that TGIAG is an actual company. Google frequently says that they’re worried for the next Google having a chance to succeed and Skype has expressed similar concerns for the next Skype. The problem is that when it has come to their actions, it seems like Google and Skype are really worried about the next Google and Skype succeeding and they behave in a way to make sure that the next innovators fail.
Earlier last year when I interviewed two companies at produced Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Skype based Voice over IP (VoIP) phones, I really wanted to know why I couldn’t get a phone that supports both VoIP protocols so that I could communicate using either protocol. Any hardware device that supports the proprietary Skype protocol should also be able to support the open IETF standard SIP. The answer surprised me, and it turns out that Skype uses their hardware licensing agreement to prohibit device makers from implementing SIP.
Skype like many other technology companies want their own proprietary protocol to dominate the market place and they’re not above using strong arm tactics to ensure an outcome. Collecting hardware licensing fees from device manufacturers is one of Skype’s primary streams of revenue, and companies have complained to me that their Skype licensing fees have gone up significantly in recent years. Collecting money from consumers is always a cumbersome affair that doesn’t engender any consumer love, but indirectly raising their costs by squeezing the device maker while locking out other free open VoIP standards has few PR liabilities because of the lack of visibility. The hypocrisy of it all is that when device makers lock out Skype, then Skype cries foul to the FCC and the European Commission and demands regulatory redress.
In recent months, Google complained to the FCC that Apple rejected the Google Voice application on the iPhone, yet Google is starting to block hardware makers from accessing YouTube. Wired reports that Syabas (the maker of the Popcorn Hour media player) is the latest victim of Google’s attempts to squeeze money from hardware makers. Google has changed the terms of their embedded Application Programing Interface (API) license to demand multi-million dollar advertising deals from companies like Syabas. Because Syabas can’t afford to pay up, they have to remove YouTube from the Popcorn Hour media player.
Life isn’t just getting harder for device manufacturers, it may soon become difficult for smaller content distributors to negotiate cheaper and more effective bandwidth over the Internet as Google and other Net Neutrality proponents are pushing to ban Internet Service Providers (ISP) from charging content providers for enhanced or prioritized access. While it might sound like a noble effort to protect content providers from having to pay ISPs for access to broadband subscribers, the effect is that content providers lose access to a cheaper and more reliable form of bandwidth. If the new FCC NPRM regulations are passed in its current form, only companies on the scale of Google will be able to build effective content distribution networks because they are large enough to negotiate free peering.
All companies are in business to make money and Google and Skype are no exceptions. No one should be criticized for trying to monetize their products and services and companies have a responsibility to pay their employees and ensure a good return on investment for their share holders. But for Google and Skype, they seem to have a problem with anyone else trying to make money and they want the media and government to help set up an environment that is hostile to their competitors or partners. While companies have a right to advocate any policy they want, it is important that we consider all the facts from all points of view. Regulators should try to be even handed and either scrutinize everyone the same or let the companies fight it out in a competitive market.
This is pretty typical corporate behavior. Not surprising in the least. Especially from a company whose motto used to be “Do No Evil.”
Those days have long since passed and now we have to deal with the “I am top dog and if you impede me, you impede competition, but if I impede competition, that’s perfectly fine. ”
Google has become what they initially claimed to hate, and in a short time. I look forward to the mass exodus to the next big thing.
Just FYI. You link to an article written by your fellow industry shill Richard Bennett, at GigaOm. It’s been completely debunked in the comments there, and that kinda cuts off your argument here at the knees. Your fear-mongering on complete hypotheticals is becoming tiresome.
NB, just because you say someone is “debunked” by a bunch of anonymous comments making personal attacks (like you are here) doesn’t make it true. Show me the facts.
The difference is that Google and Skype, unlike the incumbent internet duopoly, do not have a virtual monopoly on their services.
Wow, you’re going to start rationalizing this Joly? Google was about 1 hour away from an anti-trust suit by the justice department had they not backed off from Yahoo. Google’s market share in their respective market is much bigger than any ISP, and Google is now one of the biggest network operators on the Internet in the world accounting for 7% of all of the Internet’s traffic.
Regardless, we should try to be consistent.
[...] it’s only a technical limitation or a contractual limitation since Skype makes its moneys by charging certified hardware vendors for each device sold if they want to run [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Leave your response!
Twitter Feed
About Us
Digital Society is a digital think tank that believes culture and commerce are inseparable, that the digital economy flourishes when people are free and rights are secure, and that free markets free people.
Digital Society is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, funded by donations from Jon Henke and from Arts+Labs. We advocate for a pro-culture, pro-commerce digital society through research, analysis and debate on emerging technology issues.
Reply Comments
Transparency and interactivity are trademarks of the Internet era, and we aim to foster them here at Digital Society. It is inevitable that some people will disagree with the technology policy positions we take. We want to have that constructive debate.
The Reply Comments feature gives our critics a chance to respond to our viewpoints and the Digital Society audience convenient access to competing arguments. Any time we directly challenge the views of an individual or a group on this site, the party in question may substantively respond in a guest post.
Please contact executive director Jon Henke by e-mail.
Subscribe
Daily Digest Email
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Viewed