71–80 of 93 posts
This probably has to do with whether or not a device is able to participate in Skype's p2p call routing. If being on 3g introduces too much latency or has too limited bandwidth to contribute in the network, then each client will have a marginal cost to Skype. Maybe they're trying to ensure they can keep up with that. Or maybe they're just grubbing for money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then moneytize transparently, i.e. based on true costs. Charging for skype-to-skype calls is fine as long as clients are treated equally whether they were using dial-up, wifi, satellite or avian carriers. The type of client's connection is as unrelated as the color of his/her socks.
People always seem to think that things are priced according to the cost to the supplier, that is wrong. Goods and services are priced to what the consumer will pay for them. Skype are providing a service and people are (they hope) willing to pay for the convenience of having it on their phone. Welcome to the free market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then moneytize transparently, i.e. based on true costs. Charging for skype-to-skype calls is fine as long as clients are treated equally whether they were using dial-up, wifi, satellite or avian carriers. The type of client's connection is as unrelated as the color of his/her socks.
People always seem to think that things are priced according to the cost to the supplier, that is wrong. Goods and services are priced to what the consumer will pay for them. Skype are providing a service and people are (they hope) willing to pay for the convenience of having it on their phone. Welcome to the free market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem comes in the accounting. Try borrowing X million dollars against 2X million in assets when you have 4X outstanding debts that can be called in at any time. Sure, they probably won't be, and you might discount them to near zero, but the lender won't be so generous.
But in the sale of the gift cards/credits, at a 1:1 exchange rate, your assets would increase as well as your debt, surely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The extra usability is a function of the carrier's network, not anything on Skype's end. And since many of us are already paying our carriers for data plans, why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time? I still don't get it.
It's pretty straightforward and not very "nice": > why should Skype arbitrarily charge us a second time? 1) because they can; 2) who's going to stop them (definitely not carries who gain on that agreement)
Now I'm just hoping someone comes out with a iChat/AIM/Jabber/GTalk-like P2P standard for voice (does this already exist?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People always seem to think that things are priced according to the cost to the supplier, that is wrong. Goods and services are priced to what the consumer will pay for them. Skype are providing a service and people are (they hope) willing to pay for the convenience of having it on their phone. Welcome to the free market.
Things in efficient markets ARE priced according to the cost of the supplier. But most markets are not efficient. This is not the fault of the customer.
Not if you're selling to humans.
Humans value things other than price and features. There are goods that will only sell if they cost considerably more than the cost of production.
The efficient market hypothesis may be true, but only if you consider all costs and benefits and even then, the value of the benefits is not static and you need to account for other things that people might do with their money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in the sale of the gift cards/credits, at a 1:1 exchange rate, your assets would increase as well as your debt, surely?
Sure, at the time of sale. But you will spend/disburse the money you receive in short order and be left with a looming debt on your balance sheet.