Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco Planning To Acquire Skype

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the can-you-see-me-now dept.

Google 148

rexjoec writes "Cisco is making a bid for Skype. The deal, if successful, would derail a planned initial public offering from Skype and redraw the battle lines in the lucrative market of video communications." The rumored price is $5B.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

iPhone by Cisco? (1)

omglolbah (731566) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453172)

I'd love to see them release a new iPhone just for the hell of it :p

Re:iPhone by Cisco? (4, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453616)

Skype already had a working implementation on the world's biggest mobile plarform, as symbian application called fring allowed you to essentially tunnel into your skype account and make phone to pc, pc to phone and phone to phone video calls on any symbian mobile phone with front facing camera (which is pretty much any decent nokia made in the last 4 years).

At some point, folks at skype decided that they didn't want to be a source for free video calls over 3g and blocked fring. But to actually need to make a phone when all you need is to allow integration into already existing phones for money... why?
Video calls already worked for mobile phones over skype for a while (and apparently work again over fring itself as it added the functionality recently, but fring still seems to lack PC endpoint application). They could probably set up a small charge for every time you video call a phone with data connection, though I suspect that they have to hurry before one of the small start ups like fring grabs enough of the market and becomes skype of the mobile world.

Re:iPhone by Cisco? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33455516)

At some point, folks at skype decided that they didn't want to be a source for free video calls over 3g and blocked fring.

I think this had more to do with the fact that Fring was a 3rd party, and so they felt threatened by third party clients connecting to their network.

I've only used it once and only for voice, but I'm pretty sure my Nokia N900 can make Skype calls over 3G. In box, without any third party add-ons. It can also do video calls over Google Chat.

Re:iPhone by Cisco? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453722)

How about a Skype application that does end to end encryption from the VoIP server to the cellphone? This would definitely be the killer app. This way, management can talk plans to a sales guy making a deal in Latveria without the Elbonians listening in.

Re:iPhone by Cisco? (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454134)

I'd love to see them release a new iPhone just for the hell of it :p

A Linksys router with a VoIP phone jack, built-in camera, and monitor out might be a possibility.

Not sure how I feel (2, Interesting)

Windows Breaker G4 (939734) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453188)

I am not sure how I feel about this, we could see sweet void phones from cisco, on the other hand they could really killy Skype. Oh well I guess we have google voice now right?

Re:Not sure how I feel (3, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453214)

At least it wasn't Oracle... :p

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

Windows Breaker G4 (939734) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453304)

Well if it was at least we'd know what would happen to them :P

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453554)

At least it wasn't Oracle... :p

... or eBay.

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453282)

we could see sweet void phones from cisco Maybe a few VoIP phones from Cisco too!

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453316)

By the way, I have a VoIP phone from Cisco sitting on my desk right now: CISCO IP PHONE 7941 SERIES.

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453378)

I have the same one

Re:Not sure how I feel (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453522)

Is the company you work for that cheap that you have to share a desk and phone?

Or are you at home?

Re:Not sure how I feel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454664)

uh...yes

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453646)

Wow...all two of you posting in the same thread?

What are the odds?

-JJS

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454246)

100% of Cisco VOIP phone users are Slashdot readers! Amazing!

Re:Not sure how I feel (1)

tangelogee (1486597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454662)

I have the 7921 wireless, as well as the 7940 :)

Re:Not sure how I feel (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453552)

I know how I feel about it. It is beyond time for some enterprising individuals to team up to create an open video chat specification complete with the ability to conference in multiple people at once like this oovoo thing. (No Linux client! Bastards!) People could then put up their own servers and install clients on all OSes, not just the ones companies want to support and then Skype is less relevant.

All I see at the moment is that in spite of the existence of F/OSS projects that do exactly what I suggest, none of them are in wide enough use to be considered a peer with Skype and definitely Cisco. That, more or less, needs to change. Once Cisco gets Skype, there will be radical change and people will want to move on to something else.

Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (3, Insightful)

wshs (602011) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453190)

They do this with pretty much every company they buy. Psionic and Riverhead come to mind quickly for me. The only reason they kept the Linksys brand was because they had no competing product at the time.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453310)

I recently bought an E1000 802.11n wifi ap/router, which is ostensibly a Linksys product, but unlike other Linksys products I've used in the past, this one has the Cisco logo on it in a fairly conspicuous manner, and linksys.com now redirects you to home.cisco.com. I don't know if that's an indicator that they might be planning on phasing out the Linksys brand or not though. Probably not. I think the best parallel I can come up with would be the 'Squire' brand of musical instruments, which is produced by Fender but are basically cheap pieces of crap that they don't want to sully their main-line brand name with.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453324)

I wish this was my area of expertise.. I'd make something just so they'd come buy it from me. And then I'd make a new one.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (4, Interesting)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453514)

Buying up companies at a frantic pace seems to be the hot trend among powerful corporations.

Soon there will only be two corporations: Microsoft-Cisco-Skype-NBC-Pepsi-McDonnalds-Halliburton-Friskies Corp and Apple-AOL-Time-Warner-CBS-CocaCola-BurgerKing-BP-FancyFeast Corp.

Then you'll start getting weird messages on your computer... "You better not buy Fancy Feast." "We saw you drink that Pepsi."

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (2, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453882)

:( your future includes AOL. I can't subscribe to your beliefs.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453886)

The reason companies do the buying is that R&D is so heavily penalized in the US, due to tax breaks, liability, and other things. If a small company puts out a product, it is better to wait to see if they face lawsuits, then buy them if nothing happens as opposed to creating a product for a new market.

Plus, American companies are shackled to the fact that they have to make a profit quarter per quarter, or shareholders can sue the company in the ground. Buying a company is a lot easier to explain to the accountants and board members as opposed to charging off some chunk of change for a R&D facility for new products that won't have an ROI for 5-10 years.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454236)

American companies are shackled to the fact that they have to make a profit quarter per quarter

They don't, it's just that the market has convinced itself that they must. What a horribly farcical state of affairs.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

tjb (226873) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455724)

Plus, American companies are shackled to the fact that they have to make a profit quarter per quarter, or shareholders can sue the company in the ground.

When has that ever happened? Real citations, from places other than your ass, please.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453902)

I thought only Taco Bell would survive the restaurant wars...

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (2)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454342)

You've been watching too much demolition man.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (5, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454004)

The problem is cash sitting around doing nothing. NPR was running a story yesterday talking about how the top 120 companies have over $1 trillion of cash sitting around, and investors are demanding they either distribute it to them via dividends or invest it via mergers and acquisitions. So, yeah, if it's either earning 0.5 percent in a money market account or buying up a ton of relatively cheap companies with the potential for a much larger return, you go on a spending spree and buy up whatever you think is going to have a decent ROI.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454616)

ROI? How about space tourism? $20B goes a long way towards getting people there and would only be 2% of that $1Tn.

RETURN On Investment (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455564)

ROI? How about space tourism? $20B goes a long way towards getting people there and would only be 2% of that $1Tn.

Are you aware that ROI stands for RETURN On Investment? $20B might get some neat technology but it's no guarantee that whatever is developed will RETURN a profit. Space tourism is an industry with huge fixed costs, unknown demand, and finicky technology. Add in the risk of a significant drop in business when the first tourist dies in an accident (which will happen sooner or later) and the return on that $20B better be pretty high to justify the risk.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (2, Insightful)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454776)

Actually, another part of the reason (and I've seen this first-hand in the monster corporation I work for) is that they want to buy up little companies with good ideas before their competitors do. Sometimes all they do is buy it up and shut it down; they don't want to use the company's assets, they just want to prevent competitors from using those assets.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454824)

Or here in reality; Mergers and Acquisitions mean big deal closing payouts to C level execs and paying dividends to investors don't.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454928)

All depends on the C level folks. Some are downright fucking morons (I'm looking at you Mark Hurd. Who screws with their expense account records when you make an 8 figure salary?). Some (like Warren Buffet) have a knack for picking out value and growing it in an ethical manner. As always, YMMV.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456062)

Meh, warchests are fine if you eventually do something with them, think what would have happened if Apple had liquidated and distributed it's ~$3B in cash (more than the market cap at the time) instead of investing in OSX and the ipod.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454044)

I seem to remember a short story a few years ago that talked about a Corporation of Ultimate Evil that ended up owning the planet: MicroDiz

(Robotic and genetically engineered fuzzy animals, an inane tune playing at all times in the background - something about a "small world".)

Wish I could remember where I found the story. Chilling, but funny!

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455332)

thanks for reminding me about a TNG Borg/MS story that I read a while back. Seems that the Borg hadn't paid their MS Tax and were using Pirated Copies. The MS Lawyers disassembled them in a hurry.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

DMiax (915735) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454092)

With Google where? It seems an important omission...

Besides, good point, I did not think of it as a trend, but it looks reasonable. If I can do a bit of armchair economics analysis I suspect they could be scared of Chinese competition that is emerging?

I am not speaking of outsourcing because these are the guys that practice outsourcing. Does anyone here know what powers chinese networks? If it is a single company with unpronounceable name that is unknown to people in this side of the world I think Cisco is rightly scared.

The same could be true for other companies if they discovered that there is a chinese homologous they may be trying to grow big before their would-be competitor wakes up.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (4, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456080)

Google Voice (aka Grand Central),
Google Chat, now with phone dialing (PC to PC, PC to Phone VOIP)
Gizmo5 (Acquired last year)Voip Telephony Company
Adroid Phone

Google has ALL the pieces needed to make a serious run at SKYPE, which is why SKYPE is running to Wall Street now looking for IPO or White Knight, IMHO. SKYPE ought to be scared, because they don't have the bulk and push Google does.

And Google doesn't have to sit on Gizmo5 much longer, if they are working towards integration of the four. The pieces are almost there for the first and complete VOIP end to end network, with Cell as backup.

THAT is just how I see it.

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (2, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454524)

Hahaha you should read Jennifer Government by Max Barry...

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454784)

Soon there will only be two corporations:

Nope. Look up the words antitrust regulations. And ./ jerks, spare your remarks about MS monopoly -- Microsoft didn't create their monopoly by acquiring companies but by slow build up using their own resources (even though they may have STARTED with some acquisitions).

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455118)

Your nightmare already exists. it's called Proctor and Gamble: http://www.pg.com/en_US/brands/index.shtml/ [pg.com]

Re:Cisco Planning to Squash Another Competitor (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454636)

The only reason they kept the Linksys brand

Not sure what they kept, but their marketing department definitely destroyed blue Linksys boxes and replaced them with something Cisco-branded. In next generation routers features were removed.

Did Google see this coming... (3, Interesting)

onionman (975962) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453196)

Certainly seems like Google saw this coming from a long way off given that they have been working hard to integrate Skype-like features into gmail.

It makes me wonder how many Cisco/Skype executives were using gmail accounts...

Re:Did Google see this coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33453734)

http://www.google.com/gizmo5/

Re:Did Google see this coming... (2, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454232)

Given that I'm not that keen on participating in Google's data-mining projects, I am underwhelmed by Google Voice offerings. Skype (despite its various failings) offers a comprehensive voice (and video if you want it) or chat connection that is independent of your browser, and thus is to an extent more or less insulated from your other online habits. Skype can be swallowed up by pretty much anyone other than Google (so long as those services remain intact) and I'll be content.

Probably a good fit (1, Flamebait)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453210)

Anyone wanna revisit why eBay bought 'em in the first place? Did ya just wanna say WTF? Cisco is probably a good fit though. I just hope my home service still works as needed. I bought a GE router with the Skype software in it, bought a SkypeIn number and haven't paid Verizon a bill in 2 years.

Re:Probably a good fit (2, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453618)

Anyone wanna revisit why eBay bought 'em in the first place?

eBay bought Skype for $2.6 billion and is now rumored to be on the verge of selling it for $5 billion.

I would imagine the reason eBay bought Skype is something along the lines of "to make $2.4 billion dollars profit" though I could be mistaken.

Re:Probably a good fit (0)

pesho (843750) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453878)

Here is the eBay reasoning:

1. Buy Skype

2. ???

3. Profit!

Re:Probably a good fit (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454966)

Except it turns out that "2" was "sell it to someone else for nearly twice as much".

Re:Probably a good fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33453898)

Anyone wanna revisit why eBay bought 'em in the first place?

eBay bought Skype for $2.6 billion and is now rumored to be on the verge of selling it for $5 billion.

I would imagine the reason eBay bought Skype is something along the lines of "to make $2.4 billion dollars profit" though I could be mistaken.

Wonder if it will be an ebay auction :D

Re:Probably a good fit (4, Informative)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453918)

Somebody is going to make around $3 billion on this, but it isn't going to be eBay, who sold Skype last year for $2 billion, which was less than what they paid for the company when they bought it.

Re:Probably a good fit (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455188)

Somebody is going to make around $3 billion on this, but it isn't going to be eBay, who sold Skype last year for $2 billion, which was less than what they paid for the company when they bought it.

eBay didn't sell Skype outright. They will be making a profit in this transaction.

Re:Probably a good fit (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454184)

Uhhh, acquiring a billion dollar company isn't like buying and selling stocks. Organizations like eBay don't drop that kind of dough just to buy low and sell high. Those kinds of acquisitions are done because they're either strategic (lock up related markets, deprive competitors, etc), or because it adds value to existing business.

eBay buying Skype seemingly fit neither of those molds (unlike, say, the Oracle purchase of Sun), and so its absolutely valid to question why they made the original purchase.

Did it turn out well for them, monetarily? Sure. But it was still a strange acquisition, rendered stranger by their decision to now sell it off.

Re:Probably a good fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454638)

Ebay sold skype last year to Silverlake Group for $1.9b http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=agy971cWGyZc
Interestingly, Silverlake is ALSO the majority owner of Avaya, and Nortel Enterprise, two of Cisco's largest competitors in voice and data.

Ebay will not profit from this in any way, they have already lost.

Price seems too high (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455880)

eBay bought Skype for $2.6 billion...

And took a writeoff on the investment of $1.4 billion making their investment worth considerably less.

To be honest I think $2.6 billion would be too high a price even now. Skype reported net income of $13.2 million on about $400 million in revenue. It's growing but $5B would be a very high price. A typical "fair" price is between 1-2X revenue to use the simplest possible analysis. (5-7X EBITDA is also used but profits aren't high enough here to make that useful). M&A folks typically use some multiple to arrive at a ballpark price. $5B would be hard to justify even with skype growing as fast as it apparently is.

I think Cisco is probably the right fit for Skype. (eBay never made a damn bit of sense) Cisco has been pushing to get into the VOIP market. They'll have to be careful however because they'll be competing with some of their biggest customers, namely the telecom companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc).

Re:Probably a good fit (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456096)

Is that their buy it now price?

Re:Probably a good fit (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456174)

eBay sold skype in 2009 for $1.9B, a $125M note, and a 35% stake in the new company.

I welcome this. (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453242)

Skype is rather Nasty to deal with if you have problems. If it is urgent there is no Voice support, And the email links to ask for a problem are vague and will lead you to the wrong path, and with horible auto replies that will just make you mad.

While with Cisco sure you will be on hold for 3 hours but at least you can talk to someone and get it resolved.

Re:I welcome this. (2, Interesting)

oogoliegoogolie (635356) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453546)

If it is urgent there is no Voice support,
If it's urgent then use your telephone! Or Windows Messenger. Or how about email?

I rather enjoy Skype the way it is right now. Cisco is going to destroy Skype intentionally or accidentally by doing one of two things:
1) Add Skype's technology into their products, stick a "Powered by Skype" sticker on the box, and kill off any consumer-level access Skype as we enjoy it now. Looking back at Cisco's purchases in the last decade and you'll see this is very likely.
2) As an attempt to make Skype profitable, they'll quadruple the prices and charge for the ones that are currently free. Coming soon:unused Skype credits that expire in 30 days.

Re:I welcome this. (2, Insightful)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453782)

Really? I'm hoping they add built in Skype functionality to their routers. Cordless phones with the router as the base. Shit they could even bundle it. The market potential is HUGE.

Re:I welcome this. (1)

serbanp (139486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453848)

I can only hope that once they're acquired by Cisco their CS will improve (it's not hard to do, given the abysmal level they're at right now). Maybe then I could use them again for SkypeOut services, knowing that if I have issues (such as fraudulent charges on my account), there is someone I can talk to instead of replying to useless mail-based "CS"

OTOH, google voice is comparable in quality and slightly cheaper...

Re:I welcome this. (2, Informative)

wshs (602011) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453860)

With Cisco, you'll be on hold for 3 hours, until you read off your product serial number. Then they tell you you've reached EOL for the product in question, and offer to sell you an identical product whose only difference is the product number, at a vastly increased price. However, they won't tell you what the price is until you sign an NDA, because the gouge each customer differently.

Re:I welcome this. (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454060)

While with Cisco sure you will be on hold for 3 hours but at least you can talk to someone and get it resolved.

Depends on the level of support you need...

If you've got a SmartNet contract with them, and your network is down, they get back to you fast.

Good for eBay! (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453250)

eBay buys Skype for 2.6 billion, loses a ton of money on it over a span of 5 years, now offload sit to Cisco at a profit. Genius!

Re:Good for eBay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33453376)

except that, if you read TFA:
eBay (EBAY - Analyst Report) sold Skype to a group of private investors, led by Silver Lake Partners, for about $1.9 billion

Re:Good for eBay! (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454206)

Yeah?

Skype has eluded profitability in four of the last five years and cash-rich e-Bay, which still retains a considerable stake in the firm

Again from TFA......

They dont own them now? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453328)

I really thought they did and was waiting for the 'free' to go poof totally.

spon6e (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33453426)

Sorely diminished. If *BSD is tO 7izard - In other

Privacy Concerns? (1)

Froggels (1724218) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453560)

Will this now give the US government unfettered access to encrypted Skype data? Does anything like Carnivore come into play here?

Re:Privacy Concerns? (3, Informative)

wshs (602011) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453932)

This is where CALEA [wikipedia.org] comes into play.

Lucrative? Really? (1)

Swarley (1795754) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453562)

"the lucrative market of video communications" This seems wrong to me, but I guess I don't actually know. Skype's profits are actually pretty small, Face time is considered a fun gimmick rather than a major selling point for iPhone4. Aside from major commercial installations, like for web based university classes, I don't really see anybody who is interested in paying actual money for video communications over what they pay for voice communications. Who's actually paying to make this market so lucrative?

Re:Lucrative? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33453752)

"the lucrative market of video communications" This seems wrong to me, but I guess I don't actually know. Skype's profits are actually pretty small, Face time is considered a fun gimmick rather than a major selling point for iPhone4. Aside from major commercial installations, like for web based university classes, I don't really see anybody who is interested in paying actual money for video communications over what they pay for voice communications. Who's actually paying to make this market so lucrative?

Gotta think outside the box, Cisco probably doesn't need this from a Skype makes money perspective they want to buy this to grow the video calling. I was at a presentation with Cisco's Chief Futurist (freaking awesome title) and he talked about the Flip acquisition, the reason they bought them was to be almost a lost leader. People buy cheap HD video camera and then end up sending and transferring more HD movies and clips, ISP need more bandwidth and end up buying more Cisco routers/switches/etc which is where they really make money.

Re:Lucrative? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33453928)

Businesses. If you can add video to every desktop, businesses will love it and pay you millions. Drive network traffic through the roof and you've got to buy a whole bunch of new Cisco gear :)

This just in... (3, Funny)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453608)

Reports are surfacing that Oracle and Cisco attempted to purchase each other this morning and were destroyed in the clash. A very perturbed Larry Ellison had this to say; "When I saw they tried to purchase US I fell over into my zen rock garden and bumped my head pretty bad on a large decorative boulder." A spokeswoman for Cisco remarked; "They got database software all up in my router!" to which Larry replied; "Well, you got router all over my new Sun hardware biz!" Film at 11... AM, then lunch.

Re:This just in... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456150)

Plot sounds eerily like the end of Secret of My Success.

Cisco denies it? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453732)

Odd that all the articles cite TechCrunch [techcrunch.com] as the source of the rumor yet this guy [barrons.com] from Barrons, says it's untrue.

Re:Cisco denies it? (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455628)

It is very true.

very smart move cisco! (1)

M. Kristopeit (1890764) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453776)

putting a standard phone jack on the back of their home routers, and building skype in would greatly increase their value to most people.

Consider This..... (5, Insightful)

Atomm (945911) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453794)

Cisco has a huge install base for business VoIP. Most of those businesses connect to land lines via traditional T-1 circuits. If Cisco integrated the Skype infrastructure with all those business customers, they could route calls over the Skype network bypassing the Telco's. From what I have seen, the average business long distance rate is 2-3 cents a minute. Cisco could charge 1 cent a minute and still make a fortune because they have such a large base of customers.

Now, what if they did the same for International calling?

I think it's going to move Skype away from Consumers and into the Business world where the real money is.

Re:Consider This..... (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454718)

I think it's going to move Skype away from Consumers and into the Business world where the real money is.

Not necessarily. Cisco certainly does more business with the corporate world, but look at Linksys: WRT-54 routers have been the Cadillac of home and small enterprise wifi for a decade, and Linksys is nothing more or less than the consumer brand-name for Cisco.

If they treat Skype the way they treat Linksys, there's no reason to assume they'll do anything deleterious to private user's experience.

Re:Consider This..... (1)

Atomm (945911) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455264)

Linksys extended to business cannibalizes existing business and costs Cisco money. Skype extended to business generates a huge amount of cash flow that didn't exist previously and they can keep the consumer business as is.

Re:Consider This..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33456078)

It's called SS7. Cisco can route calls outside PSTN anyway, eg. via SIP. And yes, "regular folk" can buy a SIP phone, connect it to a SIP provider and pay cheap-as-borsch calls. 0.5 cents per minute (15 cents/h) for US/Canada are here *now*. 1c/min to most of Europe, etc..

There are providers that don't charge monthly fees. You can get phone numbers in different places routed to you. etc. etc... The old phone is dead and the new phone is not Skype - these companies are way behind the curveball anyway.. They just have name recognition.

Anyway, Skype is a shit company to acquire. If anyone does it, it's mostly for userbase not the application.

The death of Skype (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 4 years ago | (#33453930)

Cisco's hardware business will kill Skype, mainly because overpriced, state-run foreign telecom companies will demand it as a condition of buying Cisco hardware, just as they've successfully weaseled in spying kits into all their routers.

Oh great... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454400)

If it competes with their enterprise-level megabuck gear, I guess we can expect usability, features, and especially reliability, to spiral down the crapper.

They did it to Linksys, after all.

Are we sure? (1)

RebootKid (712142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454448)

There are other articles like this: http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8228715/ [localtechwire.com] floating around
Basically they say that Cisco is really looking at Smart Grid stuff, not Skype.

Anyone got a contact at any of the companies in question to actually confirm/deny/etc?

Re:Are we sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33455844)

Anyone got a contact at any of the companies in question to actually confirm/deny/etc?

It is very legit. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Maybe not (2, Informative)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454544)

This is a rumor from TechCrunch. Maybe there's something to it, maybe not. All the other news items reporting this seem to be quoting the one TechCrunch source. Another news item said "A Source Close to Cisco" said there was nothing to the rumor.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/08/31/cisco-has-not-had-talks-about-acquiring-skype-source-says/ [barrons.com]

Re:Maybe not (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455096)

Didn't TechCrunch put out another widely repeated rumor a month or two ago that turned out to be completely false? Seems like it was something else Slashdot reported (based on the TechCrunch source), but it was bogus. But, now I can't remember what it was. Racking my brain, but drawing a blank.

Re:Maybe not (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455144)

Man, I just did a Google search for 'techcrunch rumor false', and got a lot of hits on different rumors. TechCrunch appears to be the high-tech industry equivalent of a supermarket tabloid?

Makes that tablet a little more interesting... (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454570)

Remember that head-scratcher about Cisco going after the iPad with a "business tablet"?

And then remember the ask-Slashdot about how to do a Skype-dedicated device, and the answer was they all kind of blow?

Perhaps that $200 Cisco 7900 phone on your desk might get a little more sexy.

http://tech.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=cisco+tablet [slashdot.org]

Obvious business fit (1)

monoi (811392) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454640)

Skype leeches a little bit of bandwidth from a lot of organisations, which causes them all to need slightly more/bigger routers than they would otherwise.

Cisco sells routers.

What's the betting that the Skype protocol will get a bit less efficient each year from now on?

Re:Obvious business fit (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454836)

By this logic, Cisco also plans to buy The Internet.

Re:Obvious business fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33454954)

Skype leeches a little bit of bandwidth from a lot of organisations, which causes them all to need slightly more/bigger routers than they would otherwise.

Cisco sells routers.

What's the betting that the Skype protocol will get a bit less efficient each year from now on?

Skype is not really big enough to be that evil. Besides, with HD cameras shipping with more and more devices they can get the bandwidth usage up enormously just by promoting HD calls.

too late, gmail calling (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 4 years ago | (#33454772)

google semi-silently released their gmail call feature last week. *free* IP calling from your desktop to the US / canada. browser-based, simple, and just works. no mobile client, but hey, skype took it in rear w/ respect to android by only releasing a client for verizon, and then at an added cost.

Re:too late, gmail calling (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456230)

google semi-silently released their gmail call feature last week. *free* IP calling from your desktop to the US / canada. browser-based, simple, and just works.

Free for 2010 anyway, according to the notice I got when I was checking my email. The fact that they specifically said "Free for 2010" strongly suggests that come 2011, it won't be.

Still looking for p2p Video Conferencing (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455334)

We are still in the hosted communications world and I haven't found an application as easy to use as Skype that is p2p.

I want secure p2p video conferencing that I can control and know there is no middle man involved. Cisco might sell it to me for thousands of dollars. I like free better. I looked at Qnext yesterday, which wasn't bad..

Any ideas?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33455512)

heard last on slashdot.

So, does this mean that Robert Murdoch... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 4 years ago | (#33455834)

... is now lin litigation with Cisco? After all, he claims to be the one to "own the sky in Skype..." [slashdot.org]

Sweet, Will I be able to use Skype on my iPhone? (1)

goldarg (227346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33456210)

I've really been enjoying my Yahoo! Messenger but hey now maybe I could have Skype too? Wow!

And here people have been saying I should have held out for the Apple model over my Linksys one.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?