There is some apparent overlap in both offerings, in that they are both essentially smart CallBack services.  But the positioning and nuances of the service offering are in fact quite a bit different.  While on one hand I think MaxRoam represents a more comprehensive solution targeted exclusively at mobile roamers, I think that Lypp is a significantly more frictionless service which you can make use of in myriad ways, not exclusively to avoid long-distance bilking on your mobile phone.

In particular the Lypp API, coupled with the fact that you can easily instantiate calls with multiple parties via SMS and Instant Messaging,  is a game-changer.  The notion of spontaneous conferencing is actually, finally, possible.  And if you coupled Lypp (via its API) with a smart calendar-based scheduling system you’d have yourselves a pretty kick-ass enterprise conferencing solution.

But overall, the Lypp model applies wherever you have a situation where two parties elect to chat via voice while using some other medium.  Viewed from this 30,000 foot precipice, you can see that Lypp has utility in applications as far-flung as online dating, business-to-business calling, and even chat radio shows, call centres, and unified communications.

This means that in some ways Lypp competes with Jangl and Jajah, however it should probably in the end be marketed more as a toolkit like VOXEO.  Come to think of it, all of those companies are run by friends of mine, too.

What I find ironic is that the base concept of CallBack is not new … it’s been around since the early 1980s, when smart telecom entrepreneurs realized it was substantially more expensive to call from, say, Brazil to the USA than it was to call from the USA to Brazil.  These CallBack drones, much like the Prepaid Calling Card industry, were among the first major VoIP platform customers of ours when I was a lowly Product Manager in the Packet Telephony Division at Cisco.

Most of those companies died or were absorbed as their major market differentiator (price) eroded and they were commoditized by Big Telco.

CallBack services are generally easy to replicate on VoIP platforms.  What’s having a disruptive effect now is that with so many open-platform VoIP solutions and generally cheap computational power, it is possible to rapidly develop scalable telecom applications in ways that were formerly only accessible to the likes of Nortel and Cisco.

It’s clear though that among this latest batch of telecom evolutionaries there is some real innovation.  There are, however, lessons to learn:  While the clear temptation of most of these businesses will be to hinge their value
proposition on lower-cost in exchange for slightly lower convenience, this is a losing business.

The challenge is to innovate and let new capabilities and opportunities continue to drive innovation and product design.  This is an area where no Big Telco executive has any real lasting insight.  Elephants are terrible tapdancers.

-Ian.

>The Kauffman Letter
>Insights and Commentary on Fax, FoIP and UM
>September, 2000 Issue
>
>Browser Apps Need a Back End Too
>
>Nobody and I mean NOBODY wanted to admit this. PR flacks actually
>suggested I not print their clientís names. Marcom managers did all
>they could to spin me into writing about something, anything else.
>
>The number of dot-com applications with a fax back-end, is big.
>
>An example, where the name has been changed to protect the
>embarrassed. I surf over to
>FantasticallyInexpensiveBrandNameFoodDeliveredDirectToYourDoor.Com.
>My monitor displays a beautifully colored, easily navigable site,
>Where after the tedious registration process, I order everything
>from A1 to zucchini. My experience is over. Itís now up the
>dot-com to meet my Amazonian expectations.
>
>After pushing the buy button, my order is sent who-knows-where.
>But for certain it arrives at a distribution center. Or, since
>food is perishable, at a local grocer, who will bag the order and
>ready it for delivery. How do you think the bag-boy at my
>supermarket gets my order? Is there an Internet connected PC in
>his broom closet, just sitting there, waiting for it? (If there
>is, heís gaming or chatting or downloading porn, while ignoring
>my order.) No, the bag-boy receives my order by a much simpler,
>always-on device, that includes a built-in printer: the fax
>machine. You see, the front-end of web applications are
>browser-based, while the back-end of some (but certainly not all),
>is fax.
>
>Order a pizza or a hoagie, locate a car or a part or an apartment,
>even hire an architect or a plumber, all from your PC. Chances are
>good, the fulfillment may have included fax.
>
>At CarsDirect.com select the make and model you want and receive a
>quote instantly. If you like it, buy the car from them. They send
>you the paperwork and make arrangements for you to pick it up from
>a local dealer. How do they communicate with these dealers, who
>are on the showroom floor, not glued to a PC? They fax many of
>them. CarsDirect.com is in the process of “rolling out a dealer
>extranet.” But I wouldnít be surprised if some dealers prefer fax,
>for quite a while.
>
>Ditto plumbers. At Improvenet.com you can find designers,
>Architects and all types of contractors. Typically these are small
>companies, where the owner is at the jobsite and a LAN is nothing
>more than the first syllable of the word “language.” Itís easier
>and often preferable for the web-based services to communicate with
>these entrepreneurs via fax. Apartment managers fall into the same
>category. Locate an apartment anywhere in the country using one of
>several web sites. The lead information is faxed to the apartment
>manager onsite, who also doesnít have an Internet-on PC. Want a
>motorcycle? Cyclebytel.com uses faxes in the back-end too.
>
>On the B2B side, CarParts.com, BrokerPower.com, Norwegian Cruise
>Lines, the list could go on and on. The common thread is
>email-to-fax.
>
>Even delis and pizza/sub shops have gotten into the act. Though
>you may prefer to email them your lunch order, few of them have PCs.
>But they all have fax machines. So just because thereís a browser
>in the front, or the message was created as an email, doesnít mean
>it always stays that way.
>
>
>Maury Kauffman
>Managing Partner
>The Kauffman Group
>http://www.kauffmangroup.com
>
>
>I have a client looking to acquire a fax service bureau.
>Interested principals should contact me directly with a) types of
>services offered, b) demographics of customer base and
>c) revenue/minutes per month numbers.
>
>I am planning the one day Fax on the Net (FON) workshop, Monday
>November 13, at Pulver.comís VON Asia 2000 conference being held
>November 13-15 in Hong Kong. A few speaking slots remain available.
>If you would like to be considered to present, send me a one paragraph
>proposal on your topic, with complete contact information, before the
>September 30 deadline.
>
>To subscribe to The Kauffman Letter
>http://www.KauffmanGroup.com/NEWSLETTER/index.htm
>Forwarding of The Kauffman Letter is encouraged provided you CC:
>mailto:subscribe [at] kauffmangroup [dot] com so that we can provide a valid
>subscription form. Copyright 2000: The Kauffman Group Inc.
>
>To unsubscribe, reply with “unsubscribe” as the subject. You will be
>removed immediately, but will not receive a reply.

Wireless is HOT, for sure. Two Canadian companies, Research in Motion (RIM.TO) and Burnaby’s Sierra Wireless (SW.TO).. each of which have seen at least 200% market cap growth in the last year.

That’s a big reason why, after hearing very little from you all, I’ve decided to hold on my PALM shares for a while. 🙂

-Ian.

>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 02:13:09 -0800 (PST)
>From: Adam Rifkin -4K
>To: fork [at] xent [dot] com
>Subject: CMGi Goes Wireless…
>
>Here’s my “Cliff’s Notes” version of the last five years of Internet
>investment trends. [Yes, I know everyone here is going to disagree with
>me, no need to post your disagreements.]
>
>In 1996, push was hot. Then, instant messaging was hot.
>In 1997, ISPs were hot. Then, portals were hot.
>In 1998, e-commerce was hot. Then, broadband was hot.
>In 1999, infrastructure was hot. Then, b2b was hot.
>In 2000, wireless is hot.
>
>So how does CMGi survive as a publicly traded Internet stock from year
>to year? What it means to be CMGi is this: whatever new hot trend
>emerges in the market, make sure everyone knows that you’re there. It
>was just a matter of time before CMGi announced they have a “wireless
>strategy”, and this one came a good 48 hours before the Ignition article
>in the New York Times that Rohit just forwarded…
>
>Even so, the following is a pretty ballsy claim, being as CMGi knows
>nothing about wireless:
> > “We see more than 50 percent (of new investments) in wireless and
> > broadband,’ Hans Hawrysz, CMGI executive vice president of corporate
> > strategy, said in an interview following a presentation at a PaineWebber
> > Internet conference held here.
>
>CMGi’s usual protocol is to hire experts in the new domains into which
>they are entering, so I’ll be watching for those critical hires.
>In the meantime, the “Big Daddy” of the “Wireless Web” is Infospace —
>or so it has been able to convince the market.
>
>It was just two months ago, after all, that CMGi was hiring b2b experts
>to help them manage their $1 billion b2b fund. (That fund’s latest
>investment, I kid you not, is a $12 million investment in GoFish.com,
>the “Internet’s first seafood market maker” which has closed more than
>$41 million in venture funding during its first six months of
>operations. GoFish is headquartered in that hotbed of Internet
>development: Portland, Maine. 🙂
>
>It’s just business as usual in the “Nasdaq 5000 World”. A world in
>which this week alone Benchmark announced a $500 million European fund,
>and Softbank countered two days later with a $1 billion European fund.
>There is simply way too much liquidity out there to make the bubble
>end anytime soon. [And yes, Rimpinths, you can quote me on that.
>Thanks for forwarding my FoRK comments to The Motley Fool as I’ve been
>too busy lately to post there. :]
>
> > CMGI plans expansion to new markets and regions
> > By Nicole Volpe
> >
> > NEW YORK, March 7 (Reuters) – Internet venture pioneer CMGI Inc. on
> > Tuesday outlined plans for financing the next stages of the Internet
> > revolution, including wireless Web access and Web-enabling businesses,
> > moving beyond its earlier focus on consumer Internet investments.
> >
> > In addition, a CMGI executive, which is known for its early backing of
> > Web companies such as Lycos Inc., said the company would make between
> > one and three acquisitions per month during 2000 in hopes of capturing
> > new hyper-growth markets.
> >
> > “We see more than 50 percent (of new investments) in wireless and
> > broadband,’ Hans Hawrysz, CMGI executive vice president of corporate
> > strategy, said in an interview following a presentation at a PaineWebber
> > Internet conference held here.
> >
> > He was referring to the hot areas of providing high-speed Internet
> > access over cable and phone lines and links to devices such as
> > cellphones. Hawrysz said he was surprised at how recent fascination with
> > wireless Internet access has eclipsed interest in high-speed Internet
> > access as the hottest Internet topic.
> >
> > “One surprising trend is… how broadband has receded and mobile has
> > come up to the front,’ he said. “Wireless has clearly taken over.’
> >
> > Hawrysz said the company would also devote attention and investments
> > toward online services that connect businesses to their suppliers and
> > customers, an area expected to become much larger than current
> > consumer-focused Internet businesses.
> >
> > “We see CMGI…as a competing force in this market as well,’ he said.
> >
> > Andover, Mass.-based CMGI has recently set out plans international
> > expansion through strategic partnerships, to markets such as Asia,
> > Europe and Latin America.
> >
> > CMGI will use partnerships with international heavyweights such as
> > Compaq Computer Corp., the world’s largest computer maker which owns
> > about 17 percent of CMGI, in its bid to branch out, Hawrysz said.
> >
> > CMGI currently maintains a stable of some 65 companies, which
> > collaborate efforts for growth in their respective markets
>
>—-
>Adam [at] 4K-Associates [dot] com
>
>The past may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
> — Mark Twain

http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/print-it?id8b6ca1e0&t=/texis/mvm/story

Messaging On the Edge by Robert McGarvey March 06, 2000

[HIGHLIGHTS..]

Indeed, unified messaging definitely did not break into killer-app status in 1999, when, according to International Data Corp. analyst Dana Thorat, the market size reached perhaps $93.2 million, including in-house enterprise solutions. “Unified messaging has had a lot of hype, but it hasn’t delivered,” adds Brian Strachman, an analyst with Cahners InStat Group.

…

But there’s another, more important hitch. “Users are confused about UM and often don’t see the benefits,” says Raymond Tong, CEO of Uniconn, which provides unified messaging to customers in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other parts of Asia. “It takes three minutes to explain to somebody what UM means,” adds Tornado’s Sheinrock.

…

OneBox’s marketing strategy is what really sets it apart. Unlike eFax and Jfax, says Nguyen, “we’re a business-to-business, not a business-to-consumer, service. We make deals with large websites that pay us to provide services.”

[Ian: HUH? How is OneBox B2B? I hate buzzwords!] …

He’s happy to talk about users, though: “2.5 million, and we’re growing by 50 percent monthly.” Competitors and third-party observers question the accuracy of that figure, which is more than 50 percent higher than eFax’s user base and many multiples of Jfax’s. “I cannot imagine how OneBox grew that fast,” says eFax’s Brown. “They don’t have the visibility. Personally, I don’t believe it.”

“A public company has to tell you the truth, but who knows with a private startup?” says analyst Kauffman. “I see no evidence that OneBox’s claim is true.” (Repeated requests by Upside Magazine for documentation were brushed aside by OneBox.)

Adds Forrester’s McCarthy: “I think that a lot of serial signer-uppers are out there. People may have signed up, but what sort ofA continued use is there?” (OneBox rebuffed Upside Magazine’s requests for usage stats, too, so how many users it has and how often they use the service are anyone’s guess.)

…

-Ian.