Skype and Twitter should merge (even if they won’t).

April 30th, 2009  Comments

I aggregated my blogs to discontinue this blog and create a single Taylor Davidson: Photography, Travel, Innovation and Entrepreneurship blog in May 2009; if you liked this post, click here for the options to follow the blog by RSS, Twitter and email and click here to follow me on Twitter.

Skype and Twitter should merge; we should have one single platform to communicate with people using text and voice publicly and privately using any device. I know it won’t happen, but it’s still a good idea.

Twitter and Skype should merge. Why?

  • 1. A combination would simplify the mess of communication use cases and create one single platform for people and companies to exchange information using voice and text, publicly and privately, using any device.

    Each new communication tool, network and platform launches by focusing on one use case (between people, public, private, over mobile network, etc.) and then quickly tries to figure out how to integrate with other communication methods, devices and platforms.

    This splintering and re-aggregation is noisy and wasteful; not only are we are forced to use and participate in a range of tools and networks (i.e. social network fatigue), but as we choose our preferred method of contact (email, phone, SMS, private Twitter, public Twitter, comment, etc.) and our preferred provider (i.e. Twitter, any IM provider, Facebook, Bebo, et. al.) we create enormous inefficiencies and missed communications (i.e. “oh, I don’t check Twitter often.”, “I can’t direct message you through Friendfeed because you don’t use Friendfeed? what gives?”).

    Both Twitter and Skype are really just platforms that transmit information over dumb pipes; the key differences are how information is delivered (voice v. text) and displayed (private v. public); but there is no need for these use cases to be split into separate companies.

  • 2. Skype is already pursuing the strategy of powering private communications using any mix of client devices over any communications pipe. Voice and SMS; fixed-line, mobile and VOIP; iPhone, computer, WIFI phone; Skype is reducing the need for use cases to align for communication to happen; people don’t need to think about how the other person is using Skype in order to make a connection (granted, differences in voice quality across devices and networks dictate best options, so that’s still kind of a pipe dream, but it’s not far off).

    Skype has a bright post-eBay future and now has the potential to take on the mobile and fixed-line telecom operators in a way previously impossible; adding a public communication service to their private communication service would allow Skype to take advantage of the broader trend of public communication via micro-messaging.

    Perhaps instead of merging with Twitter they should just create their own public micro-messaging service…

  • 3. Each could (Twitter) and do (Skype) earn revenue from facilitating the exchange of information and from providing value-added features. * Combining the two companies would create very interesting opportunities, to say the least.

  • 4. Looking at this slightly differently: what do you think Google’s end-game is with Google Voice?

I’m probably wrong, so now it’s your turn; let’s talk about the obvious and non-obvious reasons why they won’t, can’t and shouldn’t merge.

—

* Please don’t turn this into a discussion about Twitter’s lack of / future / non-existent / yet-to-be-turned-on revenue model. Thinking about Twitter as a stand-alone business just isn’t that much fun anymore.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

By Taylor Davidson. Posted April 30th, 2009. Category: Creating Strategy using Design Methodology   Comments

SIMILAR THOUGHTS

  • So, now we have this on the table (http://wave.google.com/).

    "4. Looking at this slightly differently: what do you think Google’s end-game is with Google Voice?"
    >> Enter Wave. Stage left.
  • Good catch...

    I haven't watched the Wave demo video yet; I figure I'll start paying attention to it when I actually launches. Until then, I'll continue to use (almost) every communication silo on offer :)
  • You pick (again) a good pain point. I tend to agree with Fred that the end point integration is key. From that perspective merging Twitter and Skype can be attractive as it puts in one platform those 2 communications tools. But then there is still my Facebook communication, my emails (yes I still use this tool...), etc. Integrating all these requires to "liberate" data... but some players (a.k.a. Facebook) don't seem big fans of that.
    In addition, fragmentation is not always bad. Different online social networks serve different type of networks (e.g., Fb for friends, LinkedIn for professional, Twitter for web people, or whatever fragmentation you want etc.). This is a translation of our offline fragmentation behavior. We have always had several social circles between which we navigate and that we keep (partially or totally) separate. What is pain is the fragmentation to "monitor" the communications from each one of them.

    On a more pragmatic note, as of today it would be more Skype buying Twitter than the other way around as 1) Twitter lacks cash whereas Skype could raise cash when it does its planned IPO and 2) at least currently, Skype has a way larger valuation.
  • Practical notes: why couldn't Twitter raise cash for a Skype acquisition? I agree timelines and current cash / business positions would make it much more likely for a Skype to buy Twitter, but I can imagine a pretty overblown valuation of Twitter would make it hard for Skype to make it happen. I actually used the more general phrase "merge" to stay out of that little bit of practicality :)

    Completely agreed, fragmentation isn't bad; in fact, given the basic structure of the Internet (big dumb pipe) and the variety of human nature, it's basically guaranteed. Fragmentation happens because transaction costs are low to split and produce, but that fragmentation imposes an externality cost of sorts on the people that use these communication services.

    As I replied to Fred, wouldn't better integration / standardization of the pipes (or at least a pipe, since Twitter/Skype would never be the only pipe) make end-point integration easier and more powerful?
  • Yes fully agree on your point on integration / standardization.
    On practicalities: i don't really see VCs giving 2bn to Twitter to buy Skype... ;-) But I stop on practicalities, it's not the purpose of your post, it's a sidetrack and the "merger" wording makes the point. ;-)
  • Part of your assumption here is that Twitter and Skype are the winner pipes and once merged other new pipes won't show up. Unlikely. Thinking about endpoint integration rather than worrying about the pipes seems like what the solution will be (as elebovic mentions his blackberry almost does). I've found my phone is pulling things together slowly but surely as well - with excess phone numbers being forwarded (including skype), email accounts grouped, AIM, text and Twitter available. Key is each tool has a different purpose and 'must see' level and access availability level. I always answer calls and look at text messages. It goes downhill from there, but hopefully my network understands.

    Age may be related to how 'overwhelming' various communication tools are - but it may also be simply attitude.
  • Actually, I'm less concerned about the companies (Twitter and Skype) and much more interested in their core value propositions; fragmentation will always happen, and by no means do I think that if Twitter and Skype merged that other pipes wouldn't go away.

    I'm actually not even worrying about the pipes, I'm more concerned with how they are integrated; combining the platforms, or at least if Skype were to launch a public micro-messaging platform (PMM), would reduce the transaction costs and inefficiencies for a combined Twitter/Skype or standalone Skype/PMM to develop better endpoint solutions. Communication businesses live and die based on transaction costs, ranging from connection, termination and inter-connection costs both financial, technological and "user pain". I didn't really explain it that way (another example of my dense thought and writing process), but reducing transaction costs is really all I care about.
  • I agree that transaction costs are a huge issue and some kind of combination might help. I wonder how much of the problem with fragmentation for companies actually ends up being caused by their poor implementation of existing technologies. Would anyone tweet or blog about a problem if the old telephone call or email connection had actually worked the first time? Email and IM is more cost effective than phone, but only if problems are solved and conversations occur, otherwise we resort to more public rage to see if that gets a response. So now, instead of doing phone, IM and email well, they must add resources for each new pipe that's developed. Ouch.
  • elebovic
    Given that we communicate from different places (work, home, elsewhere/mobile), through different mediums (voice, voicemail, email, txt, IM, twitter), and different purposes (business, family, social), sorting through this web of mess and trying to search/find something has become impossible.

    I know I deal with the noise of 3 email accounts (Yahoo, Gmail, work), 3 IM systems (Work, Yahoo, GTalk), 2 phone numbers (work, mobile), skype, and then certain people who insist on communicating via TXT or Facebook; I'm still a twitter novice. Sadly, its impossible for me to capture all of this in one place, search upon it, or broadcast to user groups in an effective manner.

    My blackberry comes close to grabbing all of these touch points (ex-work phone), but the device isn't capable of retaining all of the data (size limitations of physical memory on Blackberry) and certainly doesn't have the capability of searching, analyzing this data in a powerful manner. And of course, integration into a company CRM, or into the various websites we store our content (i.e. Pictures), forget it.

    I see little pieces of success, namely coming from Google's umbrella of offerings, but the killer app has still to be found. Thankfully, with Google Sync, atleast when I lose my Blackberry, my calendar and contacts would have been retained by GMail.
  • Your story is very similar, and it makes me think: even as I've beat the "fractured conversations" topic to death using the "technology sucks" frame, I wonder if the problem is culture, not technology.

    An example: Clay Shirky:
    "you never hear 20-year-olds talking about information overload because they understand the filters they’re given. You only hear, you know, forty- and fifty-year-olds taking about it, sixty-year-olds talking about because we grew up in the world of card catalogs and TV Guide. And now, all the filters we’re used to are broken and we’d like to blame it on the environment instead of admitting that we’re just, you know, we just don’t understand what’s going on.” (link via Scott Heiferman)

    Makes me think...
blog comments powered by Disqus