Skype's Shutdown Proves Bigger Isn't Always Better
The death of a onetime powerhouse carries a lesson for antitrust enforcers—if they’ll listen.

Skype's consumer service was shut down by its parent company Microsoft on Monday. Though President Donald Trump's overzealous antitrust enforcers think popular platforms with large user bases imbue firms with incontestable market power, the rise and fall of Skype contradicts this theory. Federal trustbusters should keep this case in mind before deeming Big Tech companies monopolies, breaking them up, and decreasing American innovation, growth, and dynamism.
Skype launched in 2003 and had 150 million monthly users by the time of its acquisition in 2011. Microsoft bought the internet calling service for $12 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars in May 2011, which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved in June of that year. Salvatore Cantale, a professor of finance at INSEAD, a global business school, explained in 2013 that Microsoft paid "roughly ten times Skype's revenues in 2010 [and] around twice its recent valuation."
Some argue that Microsoft paid so much for Skype because it anticipated that doing so would corner the videoconferencing market, ensuring a profit. By 2020, Skype had grown to 32.4 percent of the global market, making it not a monopoly per se but the single largest firm in the videoconferencing space. The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically increased demand for videoconferencing—not just between family members, friends, or parties of gamers but for workplaces and classrooms.
Considering the network effects—which Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown explains as the advantages that accrue to tech platforms that already have a strong user base—experienced by telecommunications services, many would predict that this dramatic increase in demand would increase Skype's market share as new users flocked to the most-used videoconferencing platform. But the opposite happened: In 2021, Skype's market share fell to a measly 6 percent while Zoom's skyrocketed to nearly 50 percent. Skype's market share recovered only seven percentage points by 2024 and was discontinued by Microsoft, which transitioned accounts to Microsoft Teams, an application that facilitates workplace communication and collaboration.
Antitrust enforcers at home and abroad castigate Big Tech for leveraging network effects to maintain their market power. The FTC is currently prosecuting Meta, which the Commission claims violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing social media services through its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. Meanwhile, the European Union has fined the company hundreds of millions of dollars for its "pay or consent" model of Instagram and fined it for tying Facebook Marketplace to Facebook.
While these companies, like all companies, would certainly like network effects to work as an unfordable competitive moat, they do not. The case of Skype, like those of Yahoo, MySpace, and AOL, is proof that network effects are insufficient to insulate a firm from market competition indefinitely.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No, anti-trust officials will not learn anything from the Skype example or any other logical or factual considerations from the real world that undermine their authority or their meal tickets.
Microsoft folded Sype into its Teams app. Skype had been left to wither on the vine in favor of MS's own platform. I am not sure how this disproves the idea that MS was trying to corner a market, if that is your concern.
Everyone tries to corner a market. The point of the article is the effect of network effects and how with tech that advantage can rapidly shift.
Microsoft tried to corner the browser market. Does everyone use MS Edge? They missed the boat on mobile entirely and hardly anyone realized they actually did have a mobile entry into the marketplace.
Yes, without a doubt MS is trying to consolidate everyone onto a unified communication platform mostly build on MS Teams. Will it be successful? Only time will tell.
Teams is not a communication platform. If you doubt that just try using it.
They missed the boat on mobile entirely and hardly anyone realized they actually did have a mobile entry into the marketplace.
You mean Zune? Because I can't believe anyone would forget about Windows 8 or Windows Phone. Windows Mobile I'll agree but society at large seems to have utterly memory holed the whole PDA/Pocket PC era.
Microsoft did not "Fold Skype" into Teams. The two had been sharing a codebase for a long time.
Microsoft abandoned the consumer market, closing down the consumer app. It will continue to support the Teams app, because it is a part of their (largely successful) commercial Office app stack.
MS tried to corner the consumer video-chat/conference market. Just as Google did. What people found is that network effects on social media or search or browsers don't really work if the user experience of a teleconference sucks. Zoom was super easy to use in the pandemic when everyone was scrambling for a solution. It had just the right user experience.
Just as Meta is being displaced by TikTok, and google displaced Yahoo, there is no reason to think that these companies will be the dominant market power in 10 years.
Skype was never a very user-friendly platform. Connecting on the damn thing could be a real pain in the ass.
It worked for a while because it was the most ubiquitous platform, but COVID pretty much finished off whatever was left of its overall utility.
Perhaps "fold" is not the best term, but Skype users were told to merge their accounts with Teams.
I had been using Skype to make international calls with family and had Teams for work purposes, so it was not thst difficult.
I was lost in Taranto, Italy and I was able to use Skype to contact my host and get I lost. Otherwise, my accounts withered and I never used it.
Note, I occasionally get calls from China on my cell phone. The world has changed.
So, Skype is dead - and there's not a snowball's chance in hell of me ever using Teams.
That's that, I guess.
I use Teams every day for work, although ten years ago I used to use Skype. I don't notice a substantial difference.
I've had to use both teams and Skype for some time now to connect with different partners and I can tell you there is a significant difference between the two. Teams is not a communication apps. Period, full stop. The things Skype was good at teams doesn't even bother doing.
Teams is fine for meetings but who needs chat comments for every meeting they've ever been invited to in perpetuity even if they never accept or go to the meeting?
Teams is not about communication or managing communications but rather it's designed in a way that makes it convenient to hoover up loads of data with no benefit to the end users. In some corporate environments I can see why it's used, as a personal user there's no way in hell I'd subject myself to it willingly.
I use Teams every day for work, although ten years ago I used to use Skype. I don't notice a substantial difference.
Sounds like a cognitive decline issue. 🙂
Well calls don't drop as much any more but I think that was more of a provider issue.
Are we seriously blaming Trump for Skype's shutdown? These articles are getting dumber and dumber.
Microsoft bought Skype for its organs and transplanted them into Teams.
Teams is pretty successful, why would Microsoft continue to run its own competition?
It's a terrible example of "big tech isn't safe from market forces".
This new Reason college educated moron is as bad a choice as Emma. Microsoft Teams, as noted above, is what happened to Skype. Lo and behold, Teams has 33% market share behind Zoom still. Welcome the new 2nd place, same as the old 2nd place.
So, instead of an example of competition, it's an example of a large tech firm acquiring a smaller tech firm, sucking it dry to feed itself, and discarding it. Thanks Reason, for hiring yet another college grad who proves that college degrees don't equal intelligence.
You're right only if we seriously twist the concept of "market forces" out of all recognition. It is a perfect example of market forces destroying former monopolies or they would not have been able to buy Skype in the first place to suck it dry. Even then the purchase of Skype had to be approved by a federal government agency, so its not even a good example of market forces unless you include unconstitutional government power as a market force. Certainly not anything like a "free" market!
Ultimately the intended point of the article was to highlight the stupidity of monopoly busting laws and regulations. Not only do government agents almost never do it well, they never do it for the intended reasons - ensuring the public's access to as many goods and services as possible. Almost all of the time they do it to slap down big corporations to remind them who's in charge here. It is almost impossible for a monopoly to remain in existence for very long without violating a number of good laws and committing any of a number of actual crimes like extortion, assault and battery, theft or armed robbery. That is the only legitimate reason to prosecute a corporate monopolist.
"Are we seriously blaming Trump for Skype's shutdown?"
No. They are pointing out that Skype's shutdown after years of dominance shows how short sighted it is for the DOJ to go after big tech as dominant monopolies. It was dumb when the Biden administration started the effort. And it is dumb for the current administration to continue that policy.
Except this doesn't really hold water. It's like the argument about how prohibition was responsible for Matthew Perry's death. It can't be a non sequitur *and* the premise for the argument.
I'll agree we shouldn't have such rampant prohibition or monopoly busting but Matthew Perry and Skype's deaths were spurious and saying we shouldn't have (so many) laws against monopolistic behavior because of Skype is akin to saying we shouldn't have (so many) laws against murder and/or drug abuse because people die of natural causes.
I agree with the motivating principle but the article is just a terrible reach.
Stop it and just admit that you're not making any sense.
"No. They are pointing out that Skype's shutdown after years of dominance shows how short sighted it is for the DOJ to go after big tech as dominant monopolies."
Nowhere does the article mention "Donald Trump's overzealous antitrust enforcers" doing any of that.
re: "Are we seriously blaming Trump for Skype's shutdown?"
No, we're not and no one did - not in the article above and not (from what I can tell around a few blocked accounts) even in the comments section.
What we are saying is that regulators (including Trump's) have failed and will likely continue to fail to learn the lesson that Big ≠ Monopoly. We're also saying that the current regulatory approach (which predates Trump but has not been undone by him in either administration) is actively bad for consumers.
Naw, this is definitely trying to blame Trump.
I mean why even mention him on this otherwise. He was president for three full months when the shut it. He doesn't even explain who "Donald Trump's overzealous antitrust enforcers" are or what they believe.
There's no real mention of them after the opening orangemenbad.
"Skype's consumer service was shut down by its parent company Microsoft on Monday. Though President Donald Trump's overzealous antitrust enforcers think popular platforms with large user bases imbue firms with incontestable market power, the rise and fall of Skype contradicts this theory."
Oh look. Skype forgot to apply for the Biden's Ministry-of-Truth grants.
No, it means Microsoft can ruin anything.
Skype was fine ... or at least good enough, until Microsoft got its grubby hands on it and ruined it. If anything, this only teaches that you are never too big to ruin a product a la Tesla, MCUniverse, Micro$oft, et al.
Skype had the advantage of, in addition to being able to directly ring a contact, being able to call an actual phone number. Remember those?
With Zoom you need to share stupid codes, and it's not free over 40 minutes. How are normal non corporate users so enamored of it?