Skype In, Gizmo Out
So here's Michael Robertson, CEO of SIPphone, (which makes Gizmo Project) talking to Engadget about the acquisition of Skype by eBay:
"eBay buying Skype is great to raise the awareness for VoIP, but both companies have closed directories and APIs that only let people access data on the periphery. Both of their "open-platform" initiatives are highly restrictive and do not promote the best experience for the user.
"The world does not want a closed commerce and communication experience owned by eBay. The world wants a product that can call anyone, anywhere without paying a toll to a gatekeeper. Only time will tell if eBay chooses to truly open Skype up to the world, but I'm not holding my breath."
I find that attitude irritating. The ease of transmission of digital products has paired with the ugly self-indulgent post-modern mindset and spawned this hideous creature - the 21st century cult of entitlement.
Somehow we have arrived at a point where paying for something seems archaic and uncouth. The concept of value (in both the financial and the moral sense) has been totally eroded by moral relativism. What's that you say, person whose goods and services I am taking advantage of? You desire compensation for your efforts? Barbarian! Extortionist!
I mean, come on - the original concept of a toll gate represents this well, although this point seems to have been lost on Mr. Robertson. The road you are traveling on has been built, at enormous expense, by a forward-thinking individual who saw a need (or a gap in the market) and had the drive and initiative to fill it. The construction of a road is a major investment, and it's not unreasonable to charge others to enjoy the fruits of you labours. A farmer is likewise not required to give away his harvest for free, having invested a year of his toils to produce it.
Or, another way, just because Toyota is capable of making cars, they are not obliged to hand them out free to anyone who wants them. They have a right to charge for the goods they are offering, and the free market will determine the value of those goods.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of open-source collaborative projects - I think that Wikipedia, for example, is a fantastic example of human co-operation at its finest, and I love the ways in which information technology facilitates those kinds of projects. Free e-mail is wonderful, too, and my life would be far poorer without it. But I certainly don't regard it as an inalienable right.
If a company (Yahoo!, perhaps) decides that its business model includes offering free services to attract customers, and then generate revenue through advertising and premium services, that's great. If another company (Amazon.com, for example) decides to go the other direction and focus on commercial transactions, that's equally great. But it is each company's right to chose their own path, and it is the free-market consumer's right to decide which model they prefer for which instance.
Obviously Mr. Robertson has some vested interest in trashing Skype, but his suggestion that companies are somehow being unfair by keeping their intellectual property private is offensive. If he believes that services should be free, I suggest that he refrain from drawing a salary - after all, shouldn't his company have free and unrestricted access to his own services?
"eBay buying Skype is great to raise the awareness for VoIP, but both companies have closed directories and APIs that only let people access data on the periphery. Both of their "open-platform" initiatives are highly restrictive and do not promote the best experience for the user.
"The world does not want a closed commerce and communication experience owned by eBay. The world wants a product that can call anyone, anywhere without paying a toll to a gatekeeper. Only time will tell if eBay chooses to truly open Skype up to the world, but I'm not holding my breath."
I find that attitude irritating. The ease of transmission of digital products has paired with the ugly self-indulgent post-modern mindset and spawned this hideous creature - the 21st century cult of entitlement.
Somehow we have arrived at a point where paying for something seems archaic and uncouth. The concept of value (in both the financial and the moral sense) has been totally eroded by moral relativism. What's that you say, person whose goods and services I am taking advantage of? You desire compensation for your efforts? Barbarian! Extortionist!
I mean, come on - the original concept of a toll gate represents this well, although this point seems to have been lost on Mr. Robertson. The road you are traveling on has been built, at enormous expense, by a forward-thinking individual who saw a need (or a gap in the market) and had the drive and initiative to fill it. The construction of a road is a major investment, and it's not unreasonable to charge others to enjoy the fruits of you labours. A farmer is likewise not required to give away his harvest for free, having invested a year of his toils to produce it.
Or, another way, just because Toyota is capable of making cars, they are not obliged to hand them out free to anyone who wants them. They have a right to charge for the goods they are offering, and the free market will determine the value of those goods.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of open-source collaborative projects - I think that Wikipedia, for example, is a fantastic example of human co-operation at its finest, and I love the ways in which information technology facilitates those kinds of projects. Free e-mail is wonderful, too, and my life would be far poorer without it. But I certainly don't regard it as an inalienable right.
If a company (Yahoo!, perhaps) decides that its business model includes offering free services to attract customers, and then generate revenue through advertising and premium services, that's great. If another company (Amazon.com, for example) decides to go the other direction and focus on commercial transactions, that's equally great. But it is each company's right to chose their own path, and it is the free-market consumer's right to decide which model they prefer for which instance.
Obviously Mr. Robertson has some vested interest in trashing Skype, but his suggestion that companies are somehow being unfair by keeping their intellectual property private is offensive. If he believes that services should be free, I suggest that he refrain from drawing a salary - after all, shouldn't his company have free and unrestricted access to his own services?
posted by Sentinel at
9:33 AM
1 Comments:
Best article yet :)
By
Anonymous, at 4:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home