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..