Skype must be preparing for an IPO. How else to explain the bizarre rumors it could be bought by Comcast or News Corp. for $3-billion. Didn't realize April Fool's Day happened early this year. The speculation culprit is Robert Cringely, who figures Skype is worth that much on a valuation of $150 for each of its 20 million regular users. An interesting concept but how he can possibly quantify "regular" would be fascinating to know given Skype provides no details on the activities of its premium service (SkypeIn, SkypeOut, Skype Voicemail) customers. So how does Cringely justify his pie-in-the-sky valuation? Here's his explanation:
"Skype absolutely takes money out of the pockets of existing telephone companies. And since the value of a telephone subscriber is generally a known quantity, the value of an active Skype customer can be at least guesstimated."
But $3-billion? Come on, that's so farfetched it's a credibility-buster given Vonage, which generates significantly more revenue, has a valuation of about $1-billion. Speaking of $1-billion, that's the figure Tim Draper threw out half-seriously during the recent AlwaysOn conference. I think Draper was having some fun but maybe that the figure Skype's investor group is seeking - realistic or not.
Give Cringely credit for raising the idea of Rupert Murdoch entering the scene and the possibility a wireless carrier or broadband service provider could be a potential buyer rather than an ILEC or CLEC. If you believe where there's smoke, there's fire, Cringely rumor-mongering could be closer to the truth than you think. Andy Abramson, for one, thinks the News Corp. rumors are far from being far-fetched given Murdoch's affinty for disruptive technology.
Of course, there are others who believe Cringely is blowing smoke. Ethan Stock offers an extensive criticism of Cringely's arguments, and sums it up in three words: "wrong, wrong, wrong".

The Corante's Bob Cauthorn has a lengthy column - rant? - on whether mainstream journalists have the "right" to blog. His thesis is large media groups are jumping into the blogosphere more for marketing reasons - i.e. trying to court a younger audience - than providing readers with a value-added service. As a result, he dismisses most efforts by Big Media to get into the game. Here's an example of his view of the world:
"Currently, there's a rush among traditional media outlets to get into that wicked bitchin', snaps inducing “blogging thing.” Almost all of these efforts are agonizingly misguided. Buzzword compliance is a big deal in traditional media. Unfortunately, in America, media leadership is marbled with mediocre minds. And, like loneliness, mediocrity craves company."
Obviously, Cauthorn, the former head of the San Francisco Chronicle's new-media division who recently declared the daily newspaper is a "product going out of business", has strong views and his first column for The Corante's new Rebuilding Media blog is cleary written to attract attention and create controversy. (It must be working because I'm writing about it after seeing a post on BusinessWeek's Blogspotting) but it's big-time generalization. The media blogs Cauthorn takes particular umbrage with are probably lame - either because they don't have a strong focus, an author not really into the blogosphere, or an organization that has no clue how blogs can be effective - but different - communications tools. Cauthorn conveniently decides to give passing acknowledgement to the good Big Media-related blogs out there that do a good job as complementary information outlets. Blogspotting and SiliconBeat are just two examples of insightful and interesting blogs. While my blog is not formally associated with the National Post, it is probably a good example of how Big Media could provide readers with information that can't find space in the daily world of newspaper journalism or perhaps doesn't totally meet the newspaper's editorial mandate. I'm certainly not suggesting my blog's content is always scintillating but hopefully it provides some value to people looking for new ideas or views on what's going on in the technology industry. Perhaps what makes my blog different from Big Media blogs is it wasn't created because an editor read about blogs in the New York Times or The Economist. It was spawned because I mocked blogs in a column as nothing more than online diaries - only to be challenged by Tucows CEO Elliot Noss who suggested I actually write one rather than summarily dismiss them. What started as a research project has turned into a passion. And perhaps passion is what good blogs are really all about, regardless of whether they're "published" by Big Media or an individual with a bunch of ideas. Take a look at the good bloggers out there such as Om Malik and Andy Abramson, and ask them about why they do it. It's not about the money; it's much more about being excited about something and sharing it with others. Sure, there's ego involved but ego doesn't make you invest your time and energy to blog on a regular basis. Cauthorn may have some valid points but what he fails to grasp is blogging is the newest form of journalism because it allows information to get out there quickly and, as important, provides a way to get comments from readers, who are interested in the topic and, in many cases, have a lot of knowledge/ideas they want to share. For Big Media not to explore blogs would be a strategic mistake. Some organizations have done a good job getting into the blogosphere while others are still trying to find their way. Cauthorn needs to be a more patient and accept the fact Big Media is going to have a presence in the blogosphere. The silver lining, of course, is the barriers to entry on the Web are extemely low so the small-guy blogs have just as much a chance of being recognized and valued as those provided by Big Media.