Skype goes down. The world stops. A gazillion blogs post about the outage. Boo hoo. Life goes on…

The majority of Skype users don’t even pay for the service, so it’s pretty hard to point the finger at a company who doesn’t receive compensation from the majority of its users.

In reality, we use Skype because it facilitates our lives and/or saves us loads of money. We should be thanking them. But a greedy few choose not to address this.

On the other side, however, I do feel some sympathy for those who pay to use premium Skype services. They are customers. Such a lengthy outage is inexcusable. If I were a paying customer, I’d be pissed off too.

Another point to note is that Skype is used extensively as a conferencing tool by many small companies and start-ups. These companies live and die by the service. It is very common to see an executive meeting scheduled around a Skype conference call. This free alternative is great, but a paid service offers more reliability and support should a mishap present itself. The companies that use Skype’s free conferencing service have no right to be upset if the service goes down, unless of course they are paying customers.

One thing is for certain: even if Skype does go down for a couple days or even a week, people won’t switch to an alternative service. Why? Because all their friends still use Skype. They would have to presuade their entire contact list to switch over to achieve maximum value. Is this going to happen? Not likely.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you aren’t willing to pay, you can’t expect a perfect service.

Are we too dependent on free services like Skype? Is an outage acceptable to a user who doesn’t pay? Is it OK to demand a lot from a free service?

I’m not a big fan of Internet soap operas or gossip in general, although I do find the odd Valleywag headline quite amusing. In any case, there comes a time when a soap opera deals with real issues and real people. On rare occasions, respected individuals cross the line and push the boundaries. Only at this point do I feel the need to participate in the discussion and articulate my views.

This weekend I attended Gnomedex 2007 in Seattle. Friday evening Jason Calacanis stepped onto the stage and began speaking about Internet spam and disorder. His thoughts and insights were valuable and much appreciated. Having said that, he began promoting his new venture, Mahalo, half way through his presentation. This caused quite a stir among the audience, myself including. Gnomedex presentations are meant to spur discussions and conversations around trends, standards, principles, ideas, and concepts - not specific companies. In other words, this wasn’t the right time and/or place to engage in such an act. Dave Winer called it “conference spam”. I would have to agree with him. So did everyone else I spoke with.

With all due respect, this isn’t the first time I have disagreed with the actions of a so-called A-lister. Late last year, Jeff Pulver pulled a similar stunt that really pissed me off and left me questioning his credibility.

Both Jeff and Jason are well-known individuals with remarkable track records. They are admired among many, and regarded as pioneers in their respective fields. That is why it is so befuddling and perplexing when situations like these arise. These guys should know better. Suspect intentions and profit-seeking motives often get the best of everyone. Perhaps it was their turn.

The subsequent series of events from this episode on stage caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. Jason Calacanis was very upset by the backlash, most notably from Dave Winer - although I felt it was deserved. Dave Winer further expressed his views, only to apologize later. Aaron Brazell of Technosailor expressed his frustration with the whole situation, while Loren Feldman brought some humour to the ordeal.

Let me say this: I do not dislike Calacanis. I was actually looking forward to meeting him, even after this on-stage episode. I think that he is a smart guy with some smart things to say. However, he is living in a prominent role and must watch what he says sometimes. In this case, I disagreed with the way he went about presenting and/or promoting Mahalo. In the future, I think he needs to consider the consequences of his actions before acting upon them. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best with Mahalo and his future endeavours.

Google has always prided itself on aggregating user data. After all, their mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. A social network is a great way to acquire user information and data without bluntly asking for it. Millions upon millions of people have provided a detailed map of their lives in Facebook, for example. This information is priceless. Rather than fill out a lenghty, tedious registration form, users slowly complete their profiles over time.

At this point, Google really only has two options. It can:

1. Create a social network from scratch, or;
2. Acquire an existing social network.

With all due respect, Orkut just doesn’t cut it. I would even wager that the majority of North American Internet users have never heard of the service - never mind knowing that it is owned by Google. Furthermore, the percentage of English-speaking users is less than 8%, based on Alexa stats. 

An English-focused social network would tie everything together and create new opportunities for the company. The search giant would not only be able to leverage its highly successful Adsense platform, but also explore potential new revenue models. Further integration with existing social properties (i.e. Blogger, Picasa, Gmail, etc…) could provide a stunning value proposition for existing Google users, as well as potential new users.

The typical marketing plan of a clueless, old-school Internet company looking to kick it up a notch with some new-school, trendy social marketing strategies. 

Sound familiar? Countless Internet companies have become brain-washed. They are convinced that these new technologies are critical to their future success. In some cases, they may be right. But for the most part, they lack fit. Successful marketing techniques have to be strategized on an individual basis. What works for one start-up may not work for another. In other words, RSS may work for company A, while widgets may be best suited for company B.

My consulting background has really driven this point home. I’ve heard things like: “Our website NEEDS tagging” or “Let’s throw in some AJAX”. My subsequent steps are as follows:

1. I laugh (well, not aloud).
2. I describe the technology in detail and outline the benefits.
3. In most cases, I dismiss the use of the given technology.

My basis is simple: the ‘trendy’ technology MUST further the user experience and/or provide a greater marketing punch. The simple implementation of a technology for the sake of an implementation is pointless. Simply put, the questions that a company needs to ask itself are as follows:

• Will this technology create a more enjoyable user experience?
• Can we reach more potential users if we implement this technology?
• Do we simply find comfort and security in new, buzzword-compliant marketing techniques?

All jokes aside, this is a serious problem. More and more, we are seeing the use of these technologies in places they shouldn’t be. They are a waste of resources and confuse the offering.

Simplicity is key.

If traditional Internet marketing strategies (such as e-mail marketing or SEO) will provide the greatest ROI, then forget about RSS, podcasting, and the rest of their buzzword siblings. With all due respect, I am a huge advocate of all the technologies mentioned. Their place on the Internet cannot be argued, but they must be used in the proper context. 

PS. Another correct answer to the initial question would have been: the typical business plan of a Silicon Valley start-up. Too many start-ups are looking to jump on the web 2.0 buzzword bandwagon - VCs just don’t buy it anymore, literally.

Which blog will be the first to claim 1,000,000 subscribers? Only time will tell. Perhaps, we may never know exactly when the first blog does reach 1 million RSS subscribers. One may have already, although it is highly unlikely. Of the top 10 blogs listed on Technorati, only TechCrunch and Daily Kos publish their RSS readership numbers (from what I can see). For this reason, we may never know who will be first to reach the magic mark.

Here is the Technorati top 10:

1. Engadget
2. Boing Boing
3. Gizmodo
4. TechCrunch
5. Huffington Post
6. Lifehacker
7. Ars Technica
8. Daily Kos
9. PostSecret
10. TMZ

Keep in mind that these blogs are NOT ranked by RSS readership, but rather by Technorati Authority level.

Once again, the mystery surrounding web statistics and traffic numbers manifests itself. Why all the secrecy? Why the need to conceal? Quite honestly these blogs should be proud of their success and top 10 ranking.

Blog networks seem to be very fickle about their numbers. Weblogs, Inc. and Gawker* own 3 of the top 10 blogs and control many other notables including Kotaku, Joystiq, Valleywag, and AutoBlog. Nevertheless, they choose not to showcase their RSS numbers. I assume it’s like war - you don’t want to give away your position to the enemy. Meh… I think it’s a pretty lame excuse.

The independent bloggers have no reason not to publish their numbers. I would even wager that new visitors are more likely to add a given feed if they see a large RSS readership number. In other words, it may persuade people to follow the crowd and be in the know (excuse the cliches).

Getting back to the original topic, it will be interesting to see who will be the first to break the 1 million mark, if we do indeed ever see it. The rivalry and competition of the blogosphere is almost laughable. Having said that, it also makes it extremely difficult to track the progress of the Internet’s top blogs.

*Please note that Gawker does post traffic numbers, but not RSS stats.