5 reasons to believe in MS Skype, and 5 not to

After reading many of the blogs and adding in my own beliefs, here's my thinking on whether MS Skype is good or bad. My favourite comment in a tweet was 'this could be good if MSFT doesn't f*ck it up', and that's pretty much my summary view.

My views are based around one philosophy: Skype is good because it's better quality and proliferates like an opensource system, which gives it a network effect. Microsoft can make this experience better if they like, so long as they don't provide systems for myopic CIOs to restrict the open availability of all contacts.

In support of MS Skype (or how MSFT could add value to Skype)

1. MSFT aren't actually stupid. They won't mess with a winning formula. What makes Skype good is that it works on many platforms. MSFT have ditched their arrogance and will take the best bits (like the protocols and the low-security mode of operation), and keep them. I can't see them being so stupid as to make it a proprietary system.
2. Enterprises don't currently adopt Skype (formally) because of the low-security modes, such as multiple sign-on. MSFT will make a version of Skype that can be remotely controlled by IT managers -- which will fail -- but they won't destroy the consumer version. Look forward to Skype being embraced by IT organisations, rather than restricted or compromised by myopic CIOs.
3. Skype will be more embedded in more places. With Nokia/Windows combo, and the emerging will of mobile operators to embed and promote Skype, Skype will be more available in more controlled situations, making it more widely available. (Skype's biggest issue is that people's first experience is shouting into a laptop and hating it. Skype's quality experience depends on good hardware, which it doesn't control unlike Apple's facetime).
4. Skype was always about to get into fistycuffs with Google Voice and Apple Facetime. Although MSFT's acquisition may bring this fight sooner, it would be wrong to think that increasing competition was because of MSFT. We're going to see negative media about Skype's fall from glory, but this would have happened either way.
5. At least on Windows, MSFT can ensure its embedded QOS protocols give adequate priority to Skype without the user needing to configure a QOS-enabled router. This will make the quality better as a first user experience.

Against MS Skype (or how MSFT could screw Skype to death)

1. MSFT paid a fortune. They will focus on improving the enterprise version and forget that Skype needs to be made good for everybody and that it's the network effect coupled with great quality which makes it so popular.
2. The clever people at Skype are not culturally like Microsofties. Skype's engineers have a history of abusing other people's bandwidths (ever become a 'superhub'?), in the singular pursuit of call quality. It's how the authentication and voice protocols are designed. Microsoft is much less brave and will put restrictions on this single-mindedness by asking for features not quality, and the clever guys will not hang around.
3. MSFT is not a telco. The profitable part of Skype is terminating calls on POTS and mobiles. MSFT will be clueless about this, and will end up hiring the wrong people to ensure that call quality on Skype needs to continue to exceed call quality on mobiles and POTS, especially as the POTS/mobile call quality benchmark is rising.
4. MSFT might allow Skype to be so controlled by IT departments that they can control your Skype contact list (e.g., for internal communications only). That would make Skype be like Communicator, and essentially become a white elephant in a collaborative business world. That would kill it.
5. Skype is so big now that it's going to get regulated soon, and more so under a big monopolistic name like Microsoft. If you can start to port your VoIP number and Skype is no longer clearly the 'best quality' option, then people will leave -- fast.
6. Bonus FAIL. Skype depends on superhubs for its protocol to work. (Superhubs are regular skype users who have excellent internet connections. Superhubs act like DNS servers for Skype. They own the contact lists of other users and their IP/port addresses, and also act as nodes for others' voice, video and file transfers (when relayed). When you log in, you're actually registering with a superhub, which could be John Doe next door, though he doesn't know it).
   Skype themselves run 100 superhubs globally to 'seed' the system, but there needs to be a certain percentage of the user base acting as a superhub for the network to function. (All of Skype's major outages have been because of the density of superhubs reduced, e.g., because of too many rebooting at the same time after a MS patch update). Mobiles don't make good superhubs, and are leeches on the system, effectively adding to the authentication load (as the go in and out of reception) and diluting the number of superhubs in the network. I fear that Skype's protocol design has limited time anyway.

What's my personal response?
I've taken my SkypeIn numbers off my email signature so that I am not tied to them if I have to leave one day.