Facebook to target IM market and drive XMPP?

Chat is not a new innovation in customer service. IKEA has it, travel agencies have it, several others have it.
There is nothing as such new in the fact that Facebook has it. And the short-term benefits to FB are obvious.

Facebook’s customer-service department has been quietly testing a Salesforce-powered system that lets businesses contact it over Facebook Chat rather than with a phone call. This gives merchants a quick and convenient way to get answers while they run their businesses, and it keeps call-center costs down for Facebook.

But Facebook is a powerful force and attracting small businesses to it.
Let's now remember that Facebook chat is based on XMPP. Not the usual XMPP service, but any XMPP client can in theory be used as a Facebook chat client.

Facebook Chat should be compatible with every XMPP client, but is not a full XMPP server. It should be thought of as a proxy into the world of Facebook Chat on www.facebook.com. As a result, it has several behaviors that differ slightly from what you would expect from a traditional XMPP service...

Therefore, the truly interesting question is what is waiting around the corner?
Will Facebook be allowing its users (consumers) to directly connect with advertisers over chat?
Let's note that today, this seems not the primary target of FB chat. This by judging what FB says of chat in the above. But technically it could be done.

For the business using the FB-provided service could in principle mean enhanced opportunities to get consumer attention. For example, the service use case of "chat or video chat with a celebrity" is a known one.

The scenario would also call for some business analysis because one could argue that FB might be bypassed and that it is in Facebook's interest to remain somehow between the advertiser and the consumer, to monetise the service in the right way.
However, if this happens, then this would be a great boost for XMPP and openness in instant messaging.

Let's remember that also Google Talk is based on XMPP.

Is this the way how IM market finally opens up? The IM in principle would be "open" but in reality dictated by the Big Internet Players?

The Firefox WebRTC demo video is a cool one

The Firefox video showing new ways to share images, videos, files or whatever is just cool. 
It all integrates in one smooth user experience, bringing your friends and colleagues close.

It is easy to see how systems based on WebRTC will challenge current proprietary players.
And once again, we will see incumbents trying to slow down evolution or even stop it.
They will be working hard to move the battlefied to other areas where proprietary elements come to play. Exciting times ahead.

WebRTC: an enabler for embedded devices?

The Internet of Things calls for intelligent peripherals. It would be nice even low-cost devices would support CoIP. Technologically, the issue is not so much about implementation capability. Of course any cost penalty is highly unwanted.
However, I would argue that the most important factor here is the market fragmentation in CoIP standards implementation. There is uncertainty of standards to be supported and fear of their incompatibility and cost of possibly exhaustive testing.
Now it will be interesting to see if WebRTC will change things.
Of course implementing basic underlying technologies required by WebRTC takes time and effort.
But at least Plantronics will be doing some cool things. 

Wearables is a natural first step. But a dynamic CoIP interoperability and capability in e.g. a smart sensor would have certainly a lot of use cases.
Waiting eagerly for news from hardware players.

VoIP and push notifications (e.g. Skype): consumer experience?

Can one really get a good VoIP experience when Push Notifications is used to wake up the B-party app?
Let's take the Skype case.
It seems they have made changes to their plans over the course of this year.
At least what Skype says so, in February the story was:

The company noted that some other VoIP clients on Windows Phone can jump-start into the foreground when a call comes in using the standard push notification system (which Microsoft has had in place since the original release of Windows Phone 7), but that this wouldn't work for Skype — they say it takes too long to process the notification, open the app, and set up the call to make it practical. On iOS and Android, Skype is able to keep its agent running whether the app is in the foreground or not, which allows calls to ring immediately.

But now, Skype is utilising Push notifications.

Last week, if you recall, Microsoft announced Skype for Windows 8, a touch-friendly app that appeared in the Windows Store the same day Win 8 went on sale. Now, with Windows Phone 8 getting its big reveal, the company is following up with a WP8 version, which Microsoft says is coming soon. Like the new Windows 8 app, it runs in the background, delivering push notifications even when you're looking at something else. 

Emerging Issue 1: 

How is a VoIP (realtime) service consumer experience impacted by Push Notifications?

If A wants to contact B over e.g. Skype, then if Skype is not in foreground in B's device, there needs to be a wake-up by the push notification.
Then, the app is activated, and then the actual call setup signaling starts. 

All this may slow down the response times experienced by the consumer.

Emerging Issue2: 

What if one is roaming abroad? For the consumer this is typically expensive and she would prefer wifi.

Now I many Push Notifications systems use the cellular channel only.
What if roaming is off? No way for incoming calls if the VoIP app is not in the foreground?

There are a couple of possible reasons why e.g. MS/Skype has designed it this way. 

First one is the battery consumption. From that point of view, it makes sense to have Skype in the background of course, rather than refreshing itself continuously.
But the VoIP apps in some other systems, e.g. Symbian could reside as default in the foreground with quite good battery times.

Second one I have heard is that Windows Phone 8 is not a genuinely multitasking OS or rather, the multitasking services are open to first party apps only. 

WPCentral got the word from a source they trust that this improved multitasking will only work for 1st party apps. To take advantage of this functionality 3rd party developers will have to use a small hack and list their apps as " GPS apps". However it's not clear if this will influence the certification process, which it might.

Of course it is easy to come up with conspriracy theories also, especially in the Skype case.
One is that operators have been concerned of Skype and MS combination taking the call revenues. It can be argued that push notifications create less load on the networks (but how relevant that is in 3G coverage needed for Skype?) and therefore operators have in essence ensured that the circuit-switched call remains the primary means of communications in Windows Phone devices.

Comments welcomed. Will be keen to check out how VoIP apps utilising Push Notifications perform.

Telefonica: A Super Service Provider?

Telefonica is now standing out from the operator crowd. 

It is now rolling out TuMe (based on Jajah) acquisition, with no revenue targets. TuMe is about offering OTT VoIP by Telefonica to its customers.
"If you can't beat them, join them" is a way to say it.
Tu-Me allows Telefonica to expand its scope and serve customers anywhere.
The next step sounds even more interesting, cloud-based telco. From the story above:

The next stage, to be rolled out later this year, is called TuGo, and turns the offering much more cloudy as well as generating some revenue. TuGo users will be able to move their mobile number into the cloud service, which will route incoming calls to whatever device they happen to be using as well as permitting outgoing calls from that device to any phone - billed to the customer in the usual way. TuGo redefines the customer: they are no longer subscribing to a mobile telephone service, they're subscribing to a phone number which will drift between mobile and fixed networks as best suits them.

The really mind-blowing thing is if they are really able to separate services from network ownership. Or rather, what used to be a mobile network will be just another access network:

The vision is for service and carriage to be separated entirely, just as LoveFilm delivers video over a home broadband connection, so one could take a telephony service from O2 and cellular carriage from Vodafone or anyone else, assuming that was economically viable.

It is more than interesting to note how the open-source movement (Firefox OS) will align with the interests of the operator. A flood of HTML5 phones overtaking the market...?

The third step is also logical, ie. opening up APIs to the developers. That needs to happen however rather fast, with Twilio gaining ground in the marketplac.

To summarise:
It seems that Telefonica is looking to be a "Super Service Provider".
I know the term is a little vague and boring, but that's what we used when discussing various provider concepts when at Nokia some years ago.

VoIP: Verizon dancing with Google

Some interesting news. Verizon offering integrated VoIP with Google Apps.

From the story.

Verizon has launched a new cloud phone service for small and midsize businesses (SMBs) called Virtual Communications Express. The voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) service integrates with Google Apps to offer click-to-call functionality from email, calendar, and chat.

Observation 1: 

Now Google Apps, as we know, are web-based.

It will be interesting to find out about implementation of the Virtual Communications Express.

VCE needs not be based on (prereleases of) RTCWeb necessarily, but let's put it this way: would not be surprised if it was.

Observation 2:

Competitively, it appears that this is a pre-emptive move from Verizon. Better for Verizon to offer its own VoIP, rather than Google offering Gtalk (which it will of course do, sooner or later). From the story:

The devil's advocate--or, better yet, the truly bootstrapped small business--might ask: Why not just use Skype or Google Talk alongside Google Apps?

Observation 3:

It is interesting to note that Verizon value-add here is customer service.

Makes sense. I recently heard someone joke "has anyone heard of Google customer service number"...

Feature comparisons aside, Verizon apparently intends to flex its customer support muscle here. "We've found in the SMB space it's really important that there be a high touch, high customer care installation," Dalrymple said, adding that an "implementation coordinator" will be assigned to each new account to oversee the process from sale to deployment.

Observation 4:

Not surprisingly, it seems that this service has some very evolutionary elements from customer point of view. Traditional telco strongholds ie. PSTN-connectivity and numbering important:

Deployment takes seven days, according to Dalrymple; if you're porting over existing numbers, that will take about twice as long, but Verizon will issue temporary numbers in the interim.

Germany NGN Interconnection...but where is IMS?

Interconnecting VoIP networks I thought was the job of IMS and related peering setup (IPX?).
Now it seems that XConnect is doing it in a partnership. And the XConnect I know has emerged from Internet VoIP technologies, connecting the Internet VoIP islands.
Definitely an interesting case to be followed. If we see more of these, it will change the world.


From the story:
The DE-CIX NGN service resolves these challenges by offering national and international network operators a secure hub for NGN interconnection, with benefits including:

• Multilateral NGN interconnection to multiple networks, by-passing the PSTN, and reducing the need to create and manage numerous commercially and technically onerous bilateral IP interconnects
• Improved Voice quality and support for higher-value multimedia services
• Number portability corrected routing via a Centralised Number Portability database (CDB) to ensure accurate call routing
• Policy control to define and manage the technical terms of each interconnection and support for different settlement models between operators
• Reduction of capital and operating expenses, transit charges, and resource requirements for creating and managing interconnects, from interoperability testing to implementation

WebRTC could be huge...but where is MS/Skype?

Today, September 5th, Nokia launched two new Windows8-handsets.
Instead of focusing on the devices themselves (which deservedly are getting attention elsewhere!) let's talk of an emerging Internet technology standard that could fundamentally change how we communicate: WebRTC.

Basically, WebRTC could revolutionise how we communicate.
Reason is that it will enable Web developers to include voice and video communications to the web page development.
Think how you retrieve information from the Web, from any www-site. The promise of WebRTC is that communications will become as friction-free.
Think of a hotel chain. They can embed a WebRTC call-to link in their web pages and enable consumers to talk to their agents.
No need to download a VoIP client, just do it from any browser.

Until now, the VoIP providers have in reality been isolated islands, but communications moving to the browser that could change.
Let's remember, VoIP-in-browser as such is a known solution, but here we are talking of a standard, meaning the user needs not install proprietary plugins.
While this sounds elementary, the VoIP and Web industry could change with the new transparency.

But we are not quite there yet. Summer was an interesting one for WebRTC.
The good news was Google promoting WebRTC in its IO conference.
Clearly, Google and the browser vendors are leading the way for WebRTC.

But what happened then?
Microsoft (remember, MS acquired Skype some time ago...) entered the stage.

They made a comprehensive proposal on how they see WebRTC.
The concern is that if MS has its way, the WebRTC will either change course or diverge.

The MS proposal could change radically the concept of WebRTC.
One issue is the need for lower level APIs they see. This would in turn require more functionality at javascript layer, meaning burden to the developers.

Also, it is interesting to see that MS wants IETF to take network conditions into consideration. That is what the mobile industry has argued for, while IETF has always developed their solutions to "generic IP networks", assuming their performance will be adequate.
Now the word in the industry is that MS wants to slow WebRTC down, simply because Skype is the dominant VoIP network, and a closed one. This is of course very logical. Meanwhile, Google (and browser vendors like Mozilla Firefox) want to move on.
So, the game is on.
But, Google Chrome supports WebRTC basic functionality early version today, and seems others will follow.

Then, how does all this impact Nokia? Well, many Nokia devices support wifi and LTE is around the corner. LTE is an excellent bitpipe for VoIP.
Question for Nokia is: will MS/Skype be left off the WebRTC train?

Tele2 of Sweden...challenging GSMA with VoIP?

Telcos are more and more coming out with VoIP apps of their own.
Tele2 has done exactly that, their announcement today.
Unluckily in Swedish only.

Key points translated:
- available via Apps Store and Google Play
- they call this "traveler's app", key benefit being able to make and receive calls over wifi when traveling

But they may have more in the pipeline, seems RCSLabs is working for Tele2 here?
This COULD mean Web based VoIP-client for Tele2?
RCSlabs seems to be promoting a SIP based client in their webpages.

So Tele2 announced a rather simple solution now, but a step forward nonetheless.

Korean operators to charge more for VoIP...

The war against innovative IP Communications and VoIP apps is picking up.
Now Korean operators have announced they will be charging more for VoIP.

"This will set a precedent for coming apps such as FaceTime, where SKT and KT already said they will apply the same pricing policy as with local apps, and this can clash with global players like Apple and Google," said Jiho Park, an activist with the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice.

This is in a sense surprising to hear. Some questions:
- how does this move map to Korean industry policy? One would think net neutrality would promote the chances of Samsung and LG who want to sell endpoints, rather than be at the mercy of megaoperators
- or is this just that? This way Samsung the infra vendor is learning to play by the new rules?

In general, it is easy to note that this scheme will create a lot of confusion. Think of an iPhone Facetime user who moves between free wifi and 4G.
4G being flat rate would be the easy way to go, but now he has to be aware of different pricing schemes.

Secondly, VoIP is quickly becoming "just another media component", as it should be.
How then to charge apps combining various types of media?
I guess "multimedia" as such is not a new topic...for folks outside telcos...

Browsers starting to support WebRTC

Opera12 has it, WebRTC support.

Opera 12 has a lot to offer Web developers. The new version includes preliminary support for WebRTC, an emerging standard that is being drafted by the W3C Web Real-Time Communications Working Group. WebRTC will eventually enable standards-based audio and video chat in Web applications.

Also, other browsers like Chrome seem to have early support.
This is excellent news as voice and video chat will greatly enhance the Web apps.

Skype ads - would you want to watch them?

Skype has now introduced ads to 1-1 voice calls.

The ads will be visual for users with no Skype credit. Wonder how much clicks they will generate, but cannot complain of their self-confidence:

While on a 1:1 audio call, users will see content that could spark additional topics of conversation that are relevant to Skype users and highlight unique and local brand experiences. So, you should think of Conversation Ads as a way for Skype to generate fun interactivity between your circle of friends and family and the brands you care about.


Additional topics of conversation for people in the call? Hey, how about adding voice-recognition? Talk about thinking of buying a new car, and then, out of nowhere, just suddenly an ad appears...

iOS6 to combine identities, Apple to challenge GSMA...?

Here is something interesting from Apple.
The story does not talk of VoIP, but IM and video is included, also over cellular radio.

Key part:
Apple just announced a new feature that'll make using iMessage and Facetime a lot more useful — you can choose to unify your Apple ID email address and your iPhone phone number, so that messages and Facetime calls are more reliably delivered across iOS devices and your Mac. Now, if someone calls your phone number for Facetime, you'll be able to answer on your Mac or iPad. The same goes for Messages — if you get an iMessage on your phone, it'll be delivered to your Mac and other iOS devices, even if the sender sent the message to your cell phone number and not your Apple ID email. While it's too soon to tell if this will fix the issues we had with Messages on Mountain Lion, it sounds like this change could go a long way towards making sure that when someone sends you an iMessage or Facetime call, you get it across all your devices.

Let's see what this could mean:
- cellular becomes backup channel
- it is easy to see VoIP in the pipeline, the technology is there
- the result would be fullblown CoIP in Apple domain
- let's look at Google and MS. They have all the necessary capabilities...

So, the world could be quite different, a year from now...

SWIS (See-What-I-See) is here...once again...

There was a term in the industry known as "Rich Call" some five or ten years back.
Idea was that the basic call would be enriched with other media components.
The term was kinda smart as it did not really say if the voice call would be circuit-switched or VoIP. Well, here it is once again.

Need to follow how this takes off. Would be surprised if this becomes a new Skype, though. But certainly wants to wish good luck to Sidecar!

Why Facebook phone?

The news have been plentiful this week on Facebook entering smart phone business.
I think there is a clear motivation behind.

Now first, a word of warning. I do not have inside information, so writing below is speculation. On the other hand, let's just note that according to rules of game theory, players move according to their interests (and capabilities).

Therefore, the right question we can ask is "What does Facebook see that would make them enter smartphone business?"

Let's first evaluate the arguments given in the link above.

1. Facebook already has an operating system to build on

It seems the argument here is weak. "Facebook could do it because it is doable". That would not make sense to investors. Let's also remember that there is room to grow in their old model.
Social advertising is not mature.


2. It has to justify its value to Wall Street

Entering new fiercely competitive businesses outside its own domain is not usually good reason.
However, Google did that. Verticalisation. But why did Google do that? Because Apple doing that? Fine, but just copying isn't enough.

3. There's enormous room for growth

Well, there is room to grow in emerging markets in their old model.

4. Facebook can't afford to fall behind Apple and Google

Here, it is interesting to notte the rumored Zuckerberg being "worried that if he doesn't create a mobile phone in the near future that Facebook will simply become an app on other mobile platforms."
What would be so bad with that? Looking at their current monetisation models...let's come to that.

5. It's in the company's DNA

Well, hardware being in their DNA? They sure can attract the talent but this is not their DNA.

So, the reason as I see it, key question is this:
What is it that Facebook is lacking today?
They have the user base, they are increasing their marketing, they are offering messaging and email.

Here comes:
Facebook does not have the capability for secure transactions.
Simple as that. Make a payment, you need access to SIM or similar element in device hardware.
In the first case, Facebook is at the mercy of the megaoperators, in the latter case the hardware vendors.
Put simple, one could say that the security token is being integrated in mobile hardware.

So, to summarise:
Are social e-commerce transactions a business with hugely attractive potential? Sure. Let me know if you argue against.
Secondly, FB is widely available as mobile app or via browser today. Isn't that enough? No it is not. They are not ready for the lucrative mobile commerce market emerging.

So there is the theory. Let's note that of course FB may not implement the phone (or acquire a maker) on their own, it maybe quite good for negotiations to have that capability.
But of course, there will be new competition ahead for FB..

TeliaSonera, charging for VoIP and gaming industry

TeliaSonera is planning to take money for non-operator VoIP.
This would create a clear risk to innovative companies developing Internet apps.

This taken from TeliaSonera quarterly report on their plans to charge extra for Skype and other VoIP apps.


This raises some further questions and concerns.

1. Would charging extra for non-operator VoIP providers be in line with the European Commission view on Net neutrality?

2. What is more concerning is that VoIP is more often an add-on than the application itself.
Let's think of gaming enriched by voice. We are very familiar with that kind of experiences and can expect LTE make these even more common in the mobile environment.
How would charging for the VoIP path impact rich gaming applications?
How about voice embedded as part of a browsing session?

3. Now naturally, someone may say that a voice call is a voice call and (multimedia enriched) gaming is gaming.
Well, question is how do you do that?
Assuming there is capacity in the network (which we can assume will be the case), do you somehow try to delay the non-operator voice packets?

4. TeliaSonera Finland said they have no plans currently to implement charging for non-operator VoIP. (In Finnish unluckily)

But I guess this will happen someday. So what is a game developer to do?
I guess the operator will be offering some VoIP alternative (based on IMS or whatever) but the world is yet to see an operator-provided VoIP solution that would integrate with voice.

Secondly, I guess this may not happen in all markets.

But, assuming the other Finnish operators join the band wagon and start charging or blocking for the voice path of e.g. gaming app, what would that mean for gaming developers in Finland?
Not a very fruitful playground...

I admit I have been making assumptions in the above, but just trying to project what could be ahead.

Finland needs innovation from startups utilizing Internet technologies. And real-time Internet communications will be an increasingly important component of such apps.

What we do NOT need is an industry which has been reducing jobs and R&D investment suffocating such attempts.

TeliaSonera to charge for all voice calls over IP?

Seems like TeliaSonera has some ambitious plans.

According to Finnish source, their CEO has stated that "data takes 80% of the capacity in the TeliaSonera networks, but 80% of their revenues comes from voice services."
And hence TeliaSonera targets being the first operator to charge for all VoIP calls.
They will offer their customers a fixed plan which includes VoIP calling, this to be launched in Spain first.

The Spanish offering sounds like VoLTE calling and terminated internationally. This is not unheard of, just look at what MetroPCS has been doing in the USA.

Gotta wish them luck if TeliaSonera wants to stop OTT providers.
It comes to the question of will QoS and bit differentation be enough.
And how about services like integrating voice to web sites? We are unlikely to talk of MSISDN numbers then...

Cisco goes altruistic...

Cisco raises the compatibility concerns to European Commission, in the Skype-MS merger.

Imagine how difficult it would be if you were limited to calling people who only use the same carrier or if your phone could only call certain brands and not others. Cisco wants to avoid this future for video communications, and therefore today appealed the European Commission’s approval of the Microsoft/Skype merger to the General Court of the European Union. Messagenet, a European VoIP service provider, has joined us in the appeal.

This raises a couple of thoughts:
- compatibility is more crucial in the lower layers of the network. How about router vendors defining compatible OSSs?
- let's remember when Apple iPhone came out, Cisco took Apple to court because of the name. One could ask if that was for real.
This time there could be real concerns behind this. Cisco has been looking for video to be a key application. Of course, the more traffic, the better for their infrastructure sales
- at least I have not heard of their court-case partner Messagenet earlier, need to check their background...
- of course Cisco concerns as such are valid. MS may have a lot cooking here...

VoLTE-3G handover: is there a case?

Qualcomm and Ericsson are making hand-offs.

Qualcomm Inc. (Nasdaq: QCOM) and Ericsson AB (Nasdaq: ERIC) announced Thursday they have completed the first voice call handed off from a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, on voice-over LTE, to a WCDMA 3G network using Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC).

SRVCC is required by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for a seamless hand-off when a VoLTE call leaves the LTE network coverage area. Qualcomm completed its first -- and, it claims, the world's first -- hand-off on Dec. 23, on an Ericsson network using a handset with the Snapdragon S4 MSM8960 3G/LTE multimode processor on board.

There are a couple of reasons why I fail to see the value of this.
Firstly, this is more of the same, nothing new.
There will be no new services because of this concept.

Secondly, handover requirement of this type is something defined by Homo Telecomus (aka "BellHead").
I have not seen any major need for a WLAN/cellular handover, so why for this?

But future evolution COULD be more interesting.
Will RCS be implemented by Qualcomm?
I don't think RCS will be a success, but certainly a well-defined slow-moving standard could be beneficial as a chipmaker could jump into the game.
Let's also note that Qualcomm has been recruiting IMS know-how.

Let's see if this will increase demand for IMS.
Some sources say that CSFB is fast enough.
But, the fact that Qualcomm has made this happen, means there will be mobile endpoints to support VoLTE.

Also, where will the SIP stack reside:
- in the chipset (yes,if you ask Q...but will it be only for voice then?)
- in the OS (does MS have an interest here?)
- in the application layer (maybe OTT players wish that...)

In the original story, there was also an interesting comment:

My question is when might we see a "hand-off" from data billing to voice minutes billing? Will VoLTE conversations be billed as "voice" minutes even though they are data streams?

Guessing that the telcos aren't going to want to "hand off" the lucrative voice minutes, even when they are just another data stream. Long live the clarity of wireless billing.

The Microsoft opportunity with Lync

Microsoft Lync is spreading in corporate market like wildfire.
Not only that, but MS is riding the wave of Lync-to-Lync federation.

It is interesting to note the emergence of tools to e.g. set check the federation capability of an Outlook contact.
But let's remember, that while reducing costs is always a target, I would argue Lync-to-Lync federation is not a prime decision making criteria in choosing a supplier, quite yet.
Business responsible managers together with sourcing will choose the suppliers, not IT departments.
Having said that, features beyond basic voice like document sharing may be more important.

Voice messaging: where did it go?

Received an interesting question from a reader. Firstly, big thanks. It is a great pleasure to get feedback of any kind.

Here goes:

There are a lot topic regarding CoIP or VoIP. What about short voice messaging over IP?
Its concept is similar to Push-To-Talk. It can be a replacement to part of SMS.

I see there are some benefits of short voice messaging comparing to SMS:

- Fast to compose. There is a trend to use speech-to-text feature in the phone to compose SMS but still the user needs to correct the typo manually.

- Voice messaging through 3rd party instant messaging server over IP may have no extra cost. But I don’t know whether there is such a server.

- More information in the voice messages than the plain short messages: the sender’s mood and voice tune. The pure text message can’t contain such rich information.



Short voice messaging refers to the use case that the sender records a short audio clip and sends it to the recipient and the recipient plays the audio clip.


I would say yes. In the various push-to-talk solutions that were trying to enter markets in around 2004-6, I remember the company Fastmobile whose solution was this type of a voice message oriented approach.
There are plenty of others, I guess too. Let's not forget about MMS too, in the MMS paradigm.
The interesting question is why this is not more common? There are a couple of reasons maybe. Firsly, the usual non-interop between IM clouds. This is gradually changing of course, but having this type of application-to-application interop and very close integration could take more time to happen between the clouds.
If I were Apple, looking to really differentiate inside my own cloud, I would explore this type of concept.
There is great user delight to be created here.
Need to check imessage features...

WebRTC progressing

Seems Google is making WebRTC progress fast.
Now it is available in Chrome for development purposes. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

But all this is just natural, this is a natural for Google.
More interesting will be how MS/Skype play this game...

Skype to integrate with Lync?

Skype VP Osterloh talks here of various ways Skype plans to integrate with MS products.

It is kinda interesting to think of Skype client integrating with Facebook, this has been available for some time. Would be keen to see the roadmap for that client, my bet is that XMPP has a role there.

Integration with Lync? Well this could mean several things.
I guess here they talk of gateways and XMPP comes in as a natural there too.
But for business reasons (and maybe internal, who knows...) again, my speculation is that Lync and Skype will remain separate...

Trusting that she is not a dog, afterall

Don't quite get the imo.im concept of strangers connecting with each other.
With chatroulette, you at least get the visual feedback. But if this is text...?
Then again, it is good to see there are people out there with a positive view on human nature.


The goal of the network is to connect users to new people from around the world, and to those who are looking to chat. These interactions are facilitated by the “Meet New People” feature which offers an online directory and search function. The public directory is searchable by location, interests or school and users can post Twitter-like public messages called “Broadcasts” which are meant to spark discussions. When you see someone’s discussion (which, also like Twitter, can contain links), you can join in the conversation in real-time.

Setting France Free

From France, some very interesting news that could shake the market.
Free Mobile (new and 4th mobile operator in France) announced their service and prices for their 3G network (commercial release on 12th of January normally).
This will cut the prices by at least two, having only two simple subscriptions and not tying the end-user to any contract, locked phone, expensive extra minutes or options.
In a nutshell, focusing on delivering the bits over a full IP (I-HSPA NSN) network for a very affordable price to the end customer.

The man behind all this, the billionaire Xavier Niel is being hailed by French press.

Now the interesting thing of course is how will the other operators react...

(thanks Olivier G!)