Figures. No sooner do I soften my stance (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2007/11/softening-my-stance-on-skype.html) on Skype then something happens to not only reinforce my initial stance (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2007/08/skype-lives-down-to-my-expectations.html) but to undercut my reasons for relenting.
To recap, I'm not a fan of Skype's business model. They charge money for service that's actually being provided by their users and have virtually no control over it. At best, I consider it a useful secondary voice service, and I was considering using it as such.
However, news 'round the Internets (http://andyabramson.blogs.com/voipwatch/2007/11/could-uk-skype.html) is that they also don't control the phone numbers for the SkypeIn service they sell, and as a result their London, UK customers will be given new numbers this holiday season. Kind of sucks.
Turns out Skype only leases the numbers they use for the SkypeIn service they sell. So basically, when they sell SkypeIn service, they sublet a number to a user. Nothing wrong with that, except they can't control when the lease is up, just like they can't control the quality or uptime of their service.
The most ridiculous part is the response from Skype:
[That’s because Skype itself is not a telecommunication company. We make software.] (http://heartbeat.skype.com/2007/11/london-based_0207_skypein_numbers.html)
Really? Skype is not a telecommunication company? So what, you make money selling the software you make? Oh wait, no, you give that away. How do you make money? Is there something you sell? Some sort of service perhaps?
Anyway, the whole practice of selling service with no quality assurance continues to strike me as bad business. I suppose this doesn't affect my decision to use Skype as a secondary, non-vital service, but it sure doesn't make me feel any better about it. | 
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home