Skype's value isn't a particular technical implementation, it's the install base, directory and related network effects.
WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC implementation), at the expense of traditional telecoms and conference call providers.
> WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC implementation),
How so? Are their servers for sale and somehow they can license them so web clients can conference via them. Otherwise I don't get. Or are you assuming they will buckle and would be forced to implement the WebRTC protocol.
Skype makes money from call-out (to traditional telecom services), call-in (give a traditional telephone number to a Skype address) and additional features (conference calls).
WebRTC increases the potential market for all of those things by decreasing the friction - people won't even need to install the Skype client anymore.
VP8 is already used in Skype, and half the tech for the audio codec Opus came from Skype's Silk codec so it's not a forgeone conclusion. Possibly Microsoft control changes that equation, but clearly Skype thought this was the future when it was a standalone entity.
Yep. Skype's selling point isn't its uniqueness. There are plenty of reasonable VoIP options out there, of course. Skype's selling point is its established user base. WebRTC can only help that.
Skype is already using VP8. But I'd really hate it if Microsoft (or Apple) acted like assholes and tried to force h.264 or some other proprietary technology into yet another web protocol. Web technologies should be free of patent-encumbered technologies. It's the only way you can ensure its sustainability and you don't run into patent problems a few years down the road.
WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC implementation), at the expense of traditional telecoms and conference call providers.