« 3d17.org: Another stab at communal editing |
Main
| Perseus on Weblog churn »
October 5, 2003
sociocultural concerns about skype
Posted by danah boyd
Two weeks ago,
Clay posted an entry about Skype. Since then, i've been trying to process my skepticism. I'm a huge fan of P2P - i believe that it destabilized power in a valuable way - but sociocultural concerns make me wary of Skype. Three primary concerns come to mind:
1) IM is valuable because it is semi-synchronous.
2) Voice is disruptive to semi-public environments, which is where the majority of (non-business) users participate on computers.
3) Cell phone penetration and the mobility that this permits discourages any audible interactions tied to a networked machine.
[details inside]
To clarify...
1) Unlike other forms of synchronous interactions, most IM users are multi-tasking. It is not socially unacceptable to allow a limited amount of time to lapse between messages. Most IM users are engaged in multiple conversations or multi-tasking between IM and web-surfing or other activities. This makes IM exceptionally different than other forms of "synchronous" communication. Adults may scoff at this, but any teenager knows that IM is fantastic for social multi-tasking (and thus, allows for increased
gossip coordination).
2) Voice is disruptive to semi-public environments. Most (non-business) people in the world share their computer or use public clusters. Only in the wealthiest households do all members of a family have computers in their private quarters or have computers mobile enough to transport to a private location. In a semi-public situation, audible conversations are disruptive to the entire space or do not allow for the kinds of privacy that most people expect on the phone. Even on mobile phones (outside of the States), texting has become exceptionally popular because of the ability to converse without disrupting the environment. Because of this, most users are not using computers in space conducive for ad-hoc audible social interactions.
3) Cell phone penetration and the mobility that this permits discourages any audible interactions tied to a networked machine. In the 80s, the wireless phone was a privileged teenage girl's dream come true. Without a tether, phone conversations could be moved to private quarters. As cell phone penetration increases globally, people are realizing the power of privatizing phone conversations and being able to have mobility. Economics and quality of connection are the only reasons to negotiate connections tied to location.
Of course, this is precisely why this technology will be useful to certain populations. A good example would be members of any diaspora. The ability for poor people to freely connect with family members living elsewhere on the planet is quite energizing. (Of course, if it will always be free, how will Skype make money?) Given this, one feature that would drastically increase the value of Skype would be group voice chat (not just 3-way). This would be great both for family social connections as well as business/non-profit/research connections. The former is willing to connect in order to save money; the latter are frequently tied to a physical environment.
I should note that another huge advantage of Skype is the ability to have presence detection. This easily encourages ad-hoc social conversations. Of course, this is also the kind of feature that i suspect cell phones will quickly incorporate.
I'd really like to understand the excitement of social software enthusiasts. What is it about Skype that motivates you? Do you think that its popularity will be limited to specific communities?
PS: My skepticism increased dramatically when i read that Skype thinks it's better than IM clients
"Because it works!" What on earth does that mean?
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. Abe on October 5, 2003 8:23 PM writes...
I agree completely. IM actually seems far more versatile and useful then Skype. For one I already have a phone. Not to mention that 95% of the time my computer is in a state where extra sound is not welcome. Either I'm someplace where the sound will annoy others, or I'm using the computer as my stereo and don't want extra sound in the mix.
I suspect that there is a certain portion of the population that greatly prefers verbal communication over text (Stuart Henshall?) and for them Skype will blow away IM. For the rest of us, IM is probably far better suited for how computers actually work, for exactly the reasons you point out.
In areas where telco monopolies keep phone conversations at excessive rates though, Skype and other VoIP clients are extremely valuable...
Permalink to Comment2. Roch Vaillancourt on October 6, 2003 1:54 AM writes...
To answer the question in you PS comment: "Because it works", what on earth does that mean?
Good question and one might have to do a little research to know what Skyper actually means. In an interview with CNET News.com, Friis was asked the question:
"What other differences does a P2P telephone system have over others out there?"
Friis answered:
"P2P telephony just works. Our research shows that over 50 percent of broadband users are behind NAT (network address translation) and firewalls, and can therefore not make full use of VoIP solutions based on SIP (Session Initiation Protocol). The P2P technology we use makes it possible to connect and receive calls, as long as you can make an outgoing Internet connection. People expect telephony to be simple. You pick up the handset; you get a dial tone, call. That kind of simplicity is our benchmark. "
I do recall but do not remember the source that the "just works" also refers to the voice quality and latency. Supposedly(but I don't know), all other VOIP's have a latency of a second or two between users.
Assuming that
1) More people can talk to each other because of Skype (due to the firewall problems that was overcome)
2) Skype voice quality/latency is better than most VOIP solutions.
3) Skype is much easier to use than others (which adds to point 1)
Even though Skper boosts on more than just these 3 points, I think that the statement "It just works" couldn't be said better.
Permalink to Comment3. zephoria on October 6, 2003 2:18 AM writes...
Roch - thank you so much for this context! This is greatly appreciated.
That said, i still have problems with Skype's response. I think your three points are 100% valid, but the statement in the FAQ is made in response to "Why is Skype better than Net2Phone, ICQ, AIM, MSN, etc.?"
ICQ, AIM and MSN all work. And they work well. As IM clients. They constantly connect people, but their focus is not on voice. "It just works" does not address why phone is better than IM, although Skype is comparing across two different technologies that connect people in very different ways. Thus, i can't help but read that statement as lacking substance and only portraying arrogance.
Or perhaps i'm still missing something...
Permalink to Comment4. Manne on October 6, 2003 3:07 AM writes...
I guess Skype is referring to the voice-components in the IM clients. I am not sure about AIM (never used it) but ICQ and MSN both have voice capabilities.
Compared to that specific part of functionality in the IM clients I think the Skype team with their extensive P2P-network experience (from creating Kazaa) has a lot going for them when it comes to making it easier to connect through firewalls and such.
That said, I must be behind one helluva firewall, since I can't connect to Skype registration servers from my office network...
Permalink to Comment5. Robert Stewart on October 10, 2003 1:57 AM writes...
In my opinion, the only big advantage (and it really is a big advantage) of Skype is that they developed a system that can tunnel through most default firewall configurations and is relatively unhampered by NAT (Network Address Translation). For me, it really did "just work".
With respect to voice quality, Skype is at best mediocre. I was initially impressed by the sound quality, but my expectations were that it would be really bad. I'm a software engineer at a company that develops the hardware and software for IP phone switches. I can assure you that the IP phone switches that my company and most of our competitors produce easily exceed the quality of Skype, both with respect to audio bandwidth and latency. This goes for both hardware-based IP phones as well as software-only IP phones.
Of course, these IP softphones typically aren't available as a free download. I guess that is another big advantage, at least until the beta period ends.
Permalink to Comment6. Rick Wilson on January 18, 2004 6:52 PM writes...
Rest assured that when the walls of water on either side of Moses' moralizing campaign come rushing back in, their crests will be populated with profiteers. For the nonce, I'm simply enjoying free long distance and a moment of basking in the radiant heat of the sweating business community.
Permalink to Comment7. James on March 15, 2004 10:01 AM writes...
Is skype just another "Trojan horse"?
It is still a beta version, aren't we open to yet another type of program that potentially could be another "Big brother" watching over our shoulder? How is this going to affect users, as Skype seems to be spreading like a wildfire? In a sociocultural context isn't this a major concern?
Permalink to Comment