Kazaa and Skype Co-founder Interviewed

karvind writes "BBC is running is an interview with Niklas Zennström, the internet entrepreneur behind both Kazaa and Skype, about how his two inventions came about, and how broadband and wireless devices are shaping his vision for the future. From the interview: "On the other hand, Skype, just like Kazaa and other software, are encouraging people to buy broadband connections.""

Comments

Before questioning, interviewers were required...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to install several programs into their startup folders and add browser extensions to enhance the user experience.

and the reason...

[LiquidMind]

"On the other hand, Skype, just like Kazaa and other software, are encouraging people to buy broadband connections."

'why' do you ask?

warez, pr0n and MP3s!

Re:and the reason...

[egypt_jimbob]

Another reason for getting broadband is so that I can help Slashdot a site just a little bit faster.

Re:and the reason...

[Spy der Mann]

warez, pr0n and MP3s!

in my times it was sex, drugs and rock'n' roll.

I love kazaa

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, I feel like I should insert some javascript to popup a couple of ads here.

position on spyware

[moz25]

One thing I'd like to know is their position on spyware and why it has to be installed along with the actual program? How much money are they getting from it? It's quite annoying.. my father installed Kazaa lately and now he has their spyware on his system... which means that I get the fun job of removing it. Thanks, Niklas!

Re:position on spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

Kazaa Lite? Better yet, try Ares.

Re:position on spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

Spyware was added to Kazaa by Sharman after they bought the rights to it. The original Kazaa developers did not include any spyware. Get your facts straight.

Re:position on spyware

[Jugalator]

One thing I'd like to know is their position on spyware and why it has to be installed along with the actual program?

Err, it's not.

This wasn't Niklas idea, it was the idea of Sharman Networks.

And Skype actually doen't have spyware at all.

This has to be among the most common misunderstandings of Kazaa and this guy and it always comes up in these discussions.

Re:position on spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thanks, Niklas!"

You dumbass, Nickas cut his ties with Kazaa a long time ago...

Re:position on spyware

[utnow]

He's full of it. http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=298 He's making a fortune off of spyware and couldn't give a rats ass. I know I wouldn't if I had $70+ million coming into my swiss bank account.

Re:position on spyware

[XchristX]

Even though Kazaa may have spyware, you don't need to use that particular client to access the network to which kazaa connects (the fasttrack network). You can us eopensourse clients like mldonkey or apollon/giFT to do the same, & not worry abt any spyware or whatever.

Re:position on spyware

[Anonymous Coward]

Spyware was added to Kazaa by Sharman after they bought the rights to it. The original Kazaa developers did not include any spyware. Get your facts straight.

"bought the rights to it", ha ha, yes it looks like that doesn't it?

But then all these characters do things like "sell their homes to their accountants", set up shop in corrupt island nations, etc. The Kazaa hierarchy is so complex and convoluted, that members within it claim to not know how it is laid out and who is involved. Statements to this effect in court, mind you.

The original developers no longer have anything to do with the current Kazaa? YOU cannot make this claim. Nobody but those involved at certain levels can and they either refuse to take the stand or make claims to the effect that they do not know who their boss is, how money is made or how the system works (when they are supposed to be the "technical visionary").

It seems that "getting the facts straight" is impossible since they are almost hostile witnesses at best. So maybe you should keep those kinds of comments to yourself until you are able to actually make them with some level of certainty. Unless of course you are the man himself?

Owning the means of production

[Dancin_Santa]

Karl Marx's main contribution to the field of economics was the delineation of the capitalists from the workers. The capitalists would always own the means of production and always reap the rewards of a business in a hugely unbalanced manner with them at the top and the workers at the bottom.

So too is it with this "entrepreneur". He puts up the capital to fund the system and gets to reap the rewards, both monetary and psychic. However, the value of the work is provided by the workers, not the initial capital infusion.

I don't want to take anything away from Zennstrom, but I would love to see the real implementors and "little people" who keep the system running rather than a bureaucrat.

Re:Owning the means of production

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, need to re-read Karl Marx's works and/or stop listening to the idiots who have written this without specifying that this is their "interpretation" of his thoughts.

Re:Owning the means of production

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of the work is paid for, in full, by the exchange of wages for that work. The economic potential energy is in the entrepreneur and the economic kinetic energy is in the worker, but they are equal in value in the exchange of wages.

Why, then, does the entrepreneur get more? Of course, it is because they are worth more. And how is it that they are worth more? They have the money, but more importantly, they have the intellectual property. It is the entrepreneur's genius (original or purchased) which the workers get to develop.

The entrepreneur takes all of the risks associated with ensuring that the workers will be paid every month. ...and when the IRS/megacorp comes knocking with an audit/C&D/submarine patent, it's the entrepreneur who gets the ulcer, not the worker.

I subscribe to Objectivism to a certain extent, and I agree that nepetism and inheritance tamper with capitalism. ...but there is nothing inherently unfair about the value created by speculating on intellectual property.

Re:Owning the means of production

[Mindjiver]

Oh boy, another crazy left winger on slashdot. Why shouldn't the man who puts up the capital (and therefore takes all the risk) be the one that reap the rewards? If the risk-taker doesn't get any rewards why should he take the risk in the first place?

Re:Owning the means of production

[ReeceTarbert]

This is probably not the right place to indulge in such a discussion, but yours is a very common fallacy, so I'll bite anyway.

If company X announces a net rate profit of 20 per cent and the cost of all the machinery, factories and so on that it owns is $100 million, then it's left with $20 million profit after paying the wages, raw material costs, and the cost of replacing the machinery that wears out in a year. In other words, after five years the company will have made a total profit of $100 million, i.e., the full cost of the original investment.

It can't be denied that:

1) the capitalists have been paid back completely for the money they have put in in the first place;

2) the capitalists are twice as wealthy as before: they still owns his original investment plus the accumulated profits!

As a matter of fact, all this taking about "reaping rewards for risk-taking" assumes that money has the property to grow like a plant or an animal, but the capacity of money to grow really lies in the buying and selling of labour.

Now, I may or may not be "another crazy left winger on slashdot", but it seems to me that the balance is not quite right here. ;-)

Re:Owning the means of production

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you have absolutely no clue about Marx do you? "The capitalists would always own the means of production" really takes the cake, as anyone who's actually read Capital would know that Marx claimed it was inevitable the proletariat rose up to take the means of production. Marx thought a conflict between the forces of production and the relations of production -- which had defined all of history -- would be shortly resolved because industrialization concentrated the proletariat. In the case of capitalism, the relations of production were something of a remnant of feudalism, and placed a few aristocrats or bourgeoisie on top of an increasingly powerful proletariat.

Why do people post about things they don't understand in the slightest?

Re:Owning the means of production

[greenrd]

If the risk-taker doesn't get any rewards why should he take the risk in the first place?

Quite - which is why socialists don't advocate capitalism at all. Any so-called socialist that advocates for a "regulated market", is not really a socialist at all. They're most likely a liberal.

Re:Owning the means of production

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, you're insulting Marx to associate this imbecile with him.

Not only for the bandwidth..

[Keruo]

It's common for dial-up connections to have local charges, so you have to pay-per-minute to access the service.
For some users, it's still cheaper to use the dialup every now and then to check email, but if the online-time goes
beyond certain level, it just becomes financially more reasonable to get broadband than to use dialup.

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[imroy]

What backward country charges per-minute on local calls? Here in .au local calls are a flat rate, while long distance calls are charged per minute. Get a local ISP and you can sit online for as long as they allow and only pay 20-25 cents for the phone call!

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[Satan Dumpling]

What backward country charges per phone call? Here in the US local calls have no connect charge or per minute charge.

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[imroy]

Dang, I was hoping I had made a subtle jab at the US and your whacky telephone system :p

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[Richard_at_work]

To answer your question - the UK, on most prevelant call plans for landlines.

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[geoffspear]

It must depend on your carrier. Verizon definitely does have a per call connect charge, unless you pay a monthly fee to get unlimited local calling.

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[Keruo]

Well, pretty much every country except USA charges for local calls,
might be one of the reasons why AOL & dialup is still so popular there.

On side note, about 10 years ago, the ISP's here(europe) charged $60/month for dialup, then add the local call charge, and if that's not bad enough,
you had limited hour-usage on the dialup connection. I don't remember how many hours it was per month, but it was really expensive
if you actually used the entire hour limit. (something like $800-1000 in phone bill)
I'd have to guess that the reason for that was expensive routing when going across atlantic or something.
Once the pipes to abroad were switched to fiber, those charges dissappeared and broadband started emerging slowly.

The 25Mbit I now get for $40/month isn't so bad when considering what I had to pay for internet 10 years ago.
Though if I lived in a larger city, I'd probably have 100Mbit for that same price.

Re:Not only for the bandwidth..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused, nobody had 25 Mbit/s service for $40/month, especially in a small city. You probably mean 25 k/s.

Phone companies

[dannyitc]

"We have just started, and if you compare the number of people using Skype to the number using a telephone network around the world, we're still just starting.

With ambitious statements such as these, I think it's just a matter of time before phone companies start taking a hard look at competition from VoIP in general. Whether they will attempt to embrace the technology and adapt or restrict its usage via litigation (as the RIAA and MPAA have done when confronted with new mediums for delivery) remains to be seen.

Re:Phone companies

[Redfriar]

I think the phone companies have taken a long hard look at the competing technologies, and are fighting back with teeth bared and envelopes stuffed full of political contributions.

Take a look at the recent upswing in Muni-WiFi legislation, the furthering of lobbying to impose traditional fees and restrictions on VOIP providers, and the bundling of services (POTS, DSL, Cellular/Mobile) coming out of the larger telecoms.

I recently met a QWest sales rep at a non-business function (think Elementary School Music Program), and when I asked about his take on VOIP, his head exploded, and he began the longest, most invigorated FUD speech I have ever heard. They take this sh*t more seriously than Redmond does LInux/FOSS.

Re:Phone companies

[dr_dank]

Whether they will attempt to embrace the technology and adapt or restrict its usage via litigation (as the RIAA and MPAA have done when confronted with new mediums for delivery) remains to be seen

Although they haven't resorted to legal chicanery yet, the telcos still give the VOIP upstarts a crushing disadvantage in one area: E911 compatibility.

There is already plenty of FUD keeping the average person away for VOIP by the idea that their call won't be properly routed to the appropriate 911 center.

The direct dial numbers to these centers are a very well guarded secret that the Telcos won't give up to the VOIP providers without a fight.

Re:Phone companies

[bedroll]

No, they have resorted to legal chicanery. They used FUD, and I'm sure a few kickbacks, to persuade a mandate on E911. Mind you this doesn't place any mandate on the telcos to provide any access to the 911 system.

What really gets me about all of this is that most of the cases that are fueling most of this FUD were ones in which Vonage already provided an E911 connection to the county emergency contact line. It just happens that most counties ignore those lines and only man true 911 lines 24/7.

So, don't mandate municipalities to properly man emergency contact lines, don't mandate telcos to make 911 services universally available, and don't point out that vonage had several large print warnings about the limitations of it's 911 service, just give them 120 days to "fix it".

I was sure I'd read this somewhere before

[Claws Of Doom]

and I had - on the BBC last week. Don't you just hate it when you find things out before Slashdot does? You have to spend time actually doing something at work then...

Re:I was sure I'd read this somewhere before

[Winckle]

Dude http://www.fark.com/ quick!

Re:I was sure I'd read this somewhere before

[Anonymous Coward]

But you didn't find slashdot comments before it appeard on slashdot. Did you ? Gotchaaa ..

Re:I was sure I'd read this somewhere before

[Random BedHead Ed]

I have an idea: if you see something on Slashdot but realize that you already know about it, you could post a comment to tell other Slashdot readers that you already know about what's in TFA. That way you could still avoid doing actual work.

You could also blow off your job by posting comments that give other Slashdotters useful advice, like I do.

Yeah, but on the other hand...

[lxt]

Kazaa encourages users to break the law. And if they're not particularly bright users, how to unknowingly break the law. There was a load of lawsuits sent out last month by the BPI (British equivalent of the RIAA) a month or so ago, and the general reaction was "Oh, I didn't know Kazaa was illegal" (generally everyone being sued were Kazaa users).

Aside from that, surely I'm not the only person here who finds it extremely hard - no, impossible - to believe that "while Zennström thought it had great potential from the start, he did not know exactly what people would use it for"? Because he then goes on to say in the article he didn't think Kazaa would get to the stage where it could compete with Napster...presumably he knew that the primary use of Napster at the time was illegal downloading?

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[lowrydr310]

That relates to the same gripe I have about most ISPs or even computer manufacturers such as Dell.

Almost every commercial for a broadband ISP raves about how you can "download movies and music" fast! Even a recent Dell commercial I saw mentioned how you can use your new PC to download movies and music.

I know there are a few places where you can legitimately download music online, but a large number of people don't use them. Even if they do, 1GB of AAC/WMA songs isn't cheap.

I still don't know of any place where you can download movies online (legally) - not just little video clips, but full movies and TV shows.

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[joeljkp]

MovieLink is one. Also, those "little video clips" from places like ifilm.com are fun to watch, and can be a real pain at less-than-broadband speeds.

There are also lots of internet radio stations, online music stores, and legal free downloadables around.

And for those who like their adult entertainment with a side of legality, there are lots of VOD sites that really need a fast connection to use.

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[farker haiku]

Kazaa encourages users to break the law.

No, it doesn't. Laws that people don't understand nor actually agree with encourage people to break the law. The end user wants to think that their computer is similiar to their tape recorder. Is it illegal to tape things off the radio? Why then is it illegal to download things off the internet that you could get for free elsewhere? These are the questions that the end user asks themselves right before they install kazaa.

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[joeljkp]

Not in my experience. More likely they say to themselves "Free music! It's big and commercial and everyone uses it, so it can't be that bad, can it?" And that's if they get beyond the first sentence to even consider the larger picture.

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[east coast]

Kazaa encourages users to break the law.

Just as bars encourage people to drive drunk. The fact is most people leaving a bar between midnight and 2am are legally drunk (by US standards) but you don't hear any serious talk of prohibition. Just because you can go out and get fall-down drunk doesn't mean you need to. Beat on the people breaking the law, not those trying to keep things within the scope of ligitimate use.

the general reaction was "Oh, I didn't know Kazaa was illegal"

Unless things are different in the UK my understanding is that it's not that kazaa is illegal but rather the use of it for piracy is. Nonetheless, since when should the masses suffer because some claim to be ignorant of the legality of a device/service? It's illegal for me to call my neighbor and threaten to beat him to death and if I didn't know this and did threaten him would that be an arguement to get rid of phones or even language since it can be used to threaten?

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kazaa encourages users to break the law."

"No, it doesn't"

Oh, come on. Kazaa wants the program to be used the way it is most commonly used, which undeniably violates the law. I do not, however, think it follows that Kazaa is legally responsible for the actions of its users. Even though I think the existance of legitimate uses for the software is a valid legal defense, I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Kazaa does not promote illegal copying.

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[Travelsonic]

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Kazaa does not promote illegal copying.

That is just as stupid as the "having [junk food in the machines] promotes obeisity" excuse spreading around now, which could be used against any food for that matter. It is just like George Carlin's "Big Electron," it just is, just like KaZaa is just software. The people are the ones that control the usage, it doesn't do anything on it's own!

Re:Yeah, but on the other hand...

[Mozk]

If you listened to an online radio station and recorded it from there, I think it would be legal. They have the right to distribute music like that. You don't.

He mentions this

[m50d]

FTFA:
Zennström agrees the amount of adware in programs like Kazaa, and some of the other file-sharing networks, is "way too much".
"It destroys the user experience", he says.
Kazaa initially had a very limited number of advertisements, which he says "wasn't that bad in the beginning", but they grew over time.
"That's something that me and Janus learnt as an experience, and with Skype we did not have any type of advertisements whatsoever."

Re:He mentions this

[henrywood]

Hmm - I think that it's a case of once bitten twice shy. I wouldn't trust any software on my computer from the guy who invented Kazaa.

Re:He mentions this

[mph_az]

I just subscribed to Skype, having forgotten that it was the same guy who invented Kazaa. First off, I'm pretty happy with the service (it's the only software-only VOIP I'm aware of that runs on linux as well as windows). Secondly, having read a few threads I ran spybot and adaware. I had a total of 60 entries show up in spybot, all of which were tracking cookies.

Both of those are current, so I feel safe that, unless someone knows something that I don't, skype is decently safe (at least at this moment).

Re:He mentions this

[Luke-Jr]

There are SIP (a standard VoIP protocol) clients for pretty much all platforms... KPhone works well on KDE. Skype doesn't use any standard protocols, so it's useless for communicating with most VoIP users.

Re:He mentions this

[mph_az]

> Skype doesn't use any standard protocols, so it's useless for communicating with most VoIP users.

I don't use it to communicate with other VoIP users, I use it as my primary telephone service.

Re:He mentions this

[Luke-Jr]

Sounds expensive, at least compared to using standard VoIP protocols for primary phone service. ;)

Re:He mentions this

[aggles]

>>Skype doesn't use any standard protocols, so it's useless for communicating with most VoIP users. Oh, is that why it works so well? Last week, a co-worker was flying back on SAS airlines from Stockholm, subscribed to WIFI on-route, and we had a 45 minute Skype conversation that was amazingly clear except for all the jet engine noise. It just works.

Re:He mentions this

[Luke-Jr]

Most any program will interoperate with itself. Try one of you using some other VoIP program-- in particular, one that uses standard VoIP protocols.

How Kazaa REALLY came about...

[mister_llah]

Niklas Zennström: "I want to create a medium where 13 year olds can rename large files to the names of new game disk images and movies ... and put them online for download, it will provide them with hours of enjoyment... AND, here's the sinker, it will take away from SETI AT HOME'S BANDWIDTH! Those bastards will never discover my home planet now! MUAHAH!"

[[ note: this quotation has been fictionalized and may not actually represent reality ]]

Re:position on spyware[your answer]

[jwegy]

I thought this was highly interesting when I read
it, and plus it answered your question. I wonder
how sincere they are.


from the article: Zennström agrees the amount of adware in programs like Kazaa, and some of the other file-sharing networks, is "way too much". "It destroys the user experience", he says. Kazaa initially had a very limited number of advertisements, which he says "wasn't that bad in the beginning", but they grew over time. "That's something that me and Janus learnt as an experience, and with Skype we did not have any type of advertisements whatsoever."

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[geekoid]

SKyp has save the start up I work for a lot of money. It's saved me money, no more long distance charges to the family.

I think you forget how big a deal IM was when i came out. Hell, it's still a big deal, it's just a big deal you have gotten used to.

In Capitalist Estonia, the means of production own

[xtermin8]

you!
A. Its much more fun to leech off an established monopoly than start from scratch!
B. In many cases its unpractical to start project without financing and a good chance at a big return on investment
C. Karl Marx is dead, and the best thing he ever said is "I am not a Marxist!"

Skype is not overrated

[Knights who say 'INT]

Technologically, Skype doesn't bring anything new to the table, true. NetMeeting had voice chat back in the day. Still, the compression algorithm is pretty good, and it's the only way to engage in voice chat between platforms.

I'm on a Mac and it's been a boon for me and my Windows-using long-distance girlfriend. There's a Linux version as well.

Re:Skype is not overrated

[Apreche]

teamspeak can do voice chat between platforms. But its not the same as skype.

IM:Skype::IRC:Teamspeak

Re:Skype is not overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

The compression is iLBC btw, which was created by some of the people at Telio here in Norway - not by Skype - they just use it.

Skype is the same as "normal" VoIP that all the providers give (SIP), except it works over TCP and through HTTP tunnels too (because of Kazaa linkage).

how easy is skype?

[dalutong]

How easy is it to use skype (esp. behind NAT)?

thanks.

Re:how easy is skype?

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Using it behind NAT on Mac and Linux, no problems at all.

Re:how easy is skype?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very easy. I use a wireless router. Skype will connect when other programs won't, so if skype connects I know i have a connection to net and if not, I need to sort something out. Skype has no configuration, it just works!

Re:how easy is skype?

[kannibal_klown]

How easy is it to use skype (esp. behind NAT)?

That's part of the allure of Skype... it's easy to set up out of the box and works perfectly behind NATs.

How-to:
1. Install Skype
2. Register for account (pretty simple)
3. You're done :)

At least, that's been my experience with Skype on PC and Mac behind a NAT. And my NAT usually interferes with most stuff unless I do port-forwarding (which Skype doesn't need).

Re:how easy is skype?

[ggambett]

It's trivially easy. I have a FC3 box with DSL through a FreeSCO box. I thought it would be difficult to configure, but to my amazement it worked at the first attempt, without having to tweak a single setting in the FC3 or the FreeSCO box.

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[dotslasher_sri]

Dude, if you think skype = yahoo chat you are mistaken. Skype is peer to peer. yahoo chat is not. Skype doesnt have actual servers carrying the data. Look at the technology behind skype. It is amazing.

From Michael Powell:

[ImaLamer]

"[VoIP] has ignited a fire under a stalled and depressed industry."

"It's probably the most significant paradigm shift in the entire history of modern communications, since the invention of the telephone,"

"If you're going to say to me that Voice over IP is something that needs regulation, then you're going to have to explain to me why e-mail isn't also, or streaming video or instant messaging is not also,"

Of course, we all know, Michael Powell stepped down and this new guy may not be as friendly.

What I wanted to find is the quote where Powell talks about downloading and installing Skype - he said that he saw a revolution in front of his eyes when the program started. (or something to that effect)

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo 7.0.xxx is peer to peer VIDEO and VOICE.

YOU are the one that is MISTAKEN.

Kazaa is dead

[ImaLamer]

Who is really using Kazaa today?

No matter. That is what killed Kazaa in the first place. Of course they say there is no spyware in Kazaa 3.0.

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[cybpunks3]

To me, Skype audio quality is a lot better than Yahoo.

It also works better through firewalls which I think is it's true claim to fame.

Why isn't he in court?

[pasamio]

Why is the CEO, CIO and every other person involved with Kazaa and in Australian courts and having their houses raided and this bloke gets in on the BBC. Its interesting to see where things go. These guys are being hauled through Australian courts and this bloke is no where to be seen. Check out http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/412A621F4556A65 FCA256E77001DD222 and http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/7CC596EF71F41B3 4CA256E77001E31D0 for some information (they're a bit old, but do the trick)

Re:Why isn't he in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when Nicklas Zennström, a Swedish citizen, was involved with Kazaa its HQ was located in the Netherlands. They didn't break any Dutch laws back then, so there's no reason for him to be in court (let alone an Australian one)... To his credit, Nicklas actually tried to negotiate an agreement with the music industry before he, and his business-partners, finally gave up and sold the company.

Re:Why isn't he in court?

[Mindjiver]

Because he sold Kazaa long before all that happend?

Re:Why isn't he in court?

[TheoMurpse]

Because this guy created Kazaa, sold it to Australian company Sharman, and now Sharman (who added the spyware BTW) is being raided. This guy is nowhere near Australia.

Here is some history of Kazaa for you to see. This bloke has no legal ties to Kazaa anymore ;)

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it.

Ventrilo/TeamSpeak seems better, and, I can talk to more then one person.

Pushing Broadband Usage

[chia_monkey]

It's interesting to note that they talk about how Skype and Kazaa are encouraging people to adopt broadband usage. I do remember back in the day how agonizing it was trying to download mp3s on dialup. In fact, I didn't really want to download any for fear of bashing my head in from being so damn frustrated. I have used Skype also (still have it loaded on the 'puter) but I think it's more of the "established" businesses and practices that are pushing broadband (that and "Keeping up with the Joneses"). I now use Broadvoice for my VoIP at home and surely wouldn't do it without broadband. I also think iTMS is a HUGE influence on broadband adoption that is often overlooked. Who would have guessed the so-called iPod halo effect would not only push over to Mac sales but also to broadband sales?

Re:Pushing Broadband Usage

[Anonymous Coward]

Err ... you don't *need* broadband for VOIP. With a public IP and broadband, Skype are actually routing other peoples calls (paid and unpaid) through your connection if it achieves better network performance. Point to point VOIP only 2kb/s up and down. You can easily use a dialup connection to achieve this. Why don't you read the fine print and try to understand what Skype imply by "use your broadband connection to improve the performance of the Skype experience" or whatever they put in it ...

Re:position on spyware[your answer]

[Jonny_eh]

I believe them since the adware and spyware got out of control after they sold Kazaa. In the beginning, Kazaa was great (that's why it got so popular).

You can blame them for selling their popular software to such an unscrupulous company, but everyone makes mistakes.

Skype is a great product, and they make money from long distance calls, and not from ads. With Kazaa, how were they supposed to make money without ads? That was the problem!

peer to peer is not a big deal

[zymano]

Connecting free to landlines would be.

Then people wouldn't need their Rboc.

Record companies hate me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the worst kind of pirate... one they can't prosecute.

I distribute their competitors' music. I have quite a few musician friends who, without record labels' backing, cannot get on the radio. Kazaa is the new radio.

How do folks know that what I'm uploading is legal? They can't. However, DOWNLOADING in th eUS is perfectly legal, so long as you don't download over a thousand dollars worth or stuff in a six month period ("No Electronic Theift Act").

If your shared folder contains indie music that the artist wants uploaded, shareware, freeware, and other goodies people want and the authors want to be downloaded, you break no law.

I suppose that because I can kill you by hitting you in the head with a hammer, hammers should be illegal.

You, sir, are either an RIAA shill, an IFPI shill, an MPAA shill, or a fucktard. P2P users buy MORE music than those whyo don't share. This has been shown by study after study.

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[dilema]

Skype is extremely over rated. They are doing nothing new. Big deal VOIP. People act like Skype created it. They didn't. The client itself is a PIG. It uses up way too much RAM and it uses too many resources. WTH, %30 CPU wyhen in a call? And it's strictly VOIP. Yeah they are encrypting the traffic so maybe that counts for some of the CPU usage. But I thought slashdotters were mostly AGAINST proprietary shit? Skypes protocol is proprietary so why all the hoopla? Stanaphone kicks the crap out of Skype ANY day of the week. Stanaphone coupled with XLite SIP client. Now thats somethign to rave about. Free incoming calls. Free REAL telephone numbers, Competive rates. Free FAX service, FREE confernece servers. Stanaphone uses SIP, and open protocol. XLite has an SDK for devs. This is a WIN WIN situation. And oh yeah XLite uses a whopping 7MB RAM on my machine and uses maybe 5 - 7 CPU. Call me when Skype actually does something interesting and new.

ticking the "allow the RIAA to see all my files"

[matt me]

What dumb users share their entire hard-drives and then tick the box labelled "allow anyone to see a list of all my files"?

VoIP == Phone ???

[ImaLamer]

don't mandate telcos to make 911 services universally available

Here in Cincinnati, we learned that you *must* mandate. We learned the hard way. The telco shut someone's service off and they couldn't call 911. That person had a child die in front of their eyes.

Then the law was changed so that every phone line must be able to reach 911 in this state. Hey, we here in Ohio don't like to see people die because they don't have a dime to call 911 or they let their phone bill go unpaid.

Sorry, but life is more important than all of this "business" to some people. You know, maybe Vonage/Time Warner cable/whoever shouldn't market their services as "phone lines". People think that VoIP will be able to dodge FCC line charges and other "taxes", but not forever. I say that if you want to call it a phone line, then treat it like a phone line. Sorry, but that includes 911 and the taxes that go along with it.

If the only reason you went to VoIP is because you wanted to skip over a few taxes then it wasn't worth it. On the other hand, the telco has no right to restrict access to government services, or even their own lines (that is why we broke up AT&T right?).

Re:VoIP == Phone ???

[bedroll]

Yes, and in New Jersey there's a law that mandates that 911 calls and calls to the local emergency contact go to the same operator and are treated as equal, meaning that E911 worked here as soon as Vonage implemented it. Not that I'm bashing Ohio, because I'm from there, but there are better ways to implement mandates.

The point is that the mandate is wrong. They're mandating someone to do something without mandating anyone else to comply. It was well-known before all of this that E911 is seriously lacking as a system because the telcos control 911. So the FCC waits until there's a lot of media attention about the problem, then they fix it by mandating the organizations with the least control to fix a problem that the telcos (organizations with the most control) have a vested interest in not complying with. Why haven't they mandated the telcos to work with VoIP providers?

The taxes are a whole nother issue. VoIP gets away without the taxation because the FCC ruled that it's a data service. The taxation is purely to subsidize rural telephone access. Billions of dollars are taxed on interstate phonecalls every year, and that money just goes right back to the telcos because they're saying it cost them too much to provide service in Nebraska. The FCC should re-evaluate the entire taxation system, not simply impose the same taxation on VoIP carriers that wouldn't even benefit from it. As for other taxes, my VoIP line carries the same basic line taxes that my Verizon land line did and my Verizon cell phone still does.

About the marketing claims: Well, it's true that they market their services as phone services. However they make you click through LARGE PRINT disclaimers that clearly state that 911 may not be available, and when it is it may not be functionally the same as standard 911. This should only be a problem if you can't read. It's not even buried in fine print as so much important information seems to be anymore. It's there, plain as day. Shouldn't people be held accountable for reading something like that?

skype can be a bandwidth hog in corporate networks

[PhiberOptix]

On the other hand, skype is a pain in the ass if you want to block users in your corporate network to use it (bandwidth is still expensive where i live).
If you block connections to the skype login servers, the client will then start trying to connect to random "supernodes", which are other clients connected to the internet and that accept inbound connections. It also uses ports 80 and 443 to disguise itself as http traffic, and it encrypts its traffic, so its nearly impossible to block it using proxy and firewall acls...
msn messenger at least correctly identifies its tcp headers, so network admins can "choose" to either accept its traffic or not.

not just buying broadband

[CKW]

.
It hasn't just got a lot of us buying broadband, but a ton of us have bought anywhere between 1 and 10 new super-huge hard-drives over the past 2+ years, CD/DVD Burners, spindles of CDRs/DVDRs, and now having downloaded a 40 minute TV episode that is a 1.5 GB xvid 720p, I'm feeling the need for a 3800+ system with a brand new $500 video card!!
.

Spyware creates jobs

[millermj]

As long as there's Spyware included with programs like Kazaa, there will be jobs to remove and prevent the installation of spyware. Much like the virus industry. :) I always tell people I'm always thankful to Microsoft for creating a market for Linux.

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Breakfast Pants]

You can conference call on Skype with multiple users. Also you don't have to log into some small centralized server like with ventrilo/team speak. You can contact any skype user out of millions as opposed to 40 or so on your vent server... it's MUCH different than those two apps.

Skype is more than just 'hype' (sorry...)

[virtualeve]

I'm not a shill for Skype but it has reduced our company's monthly expenses. Members of our dev team are geographically spread out all across the country and our guys stay in constant contact with Skype; we prefer it to IM because voice is more immediate than typing and their hands are free to work (code) or, if you know anything about our product, do 'other' things :-) Instead of the variable cost of long distance charges, we have the one-time fixed cost of a good quality USB headset for each employee -- the choice of headset greatly affects the voice quality of the calls; we've found that the Plantronics DSP 500 provides superb voice quality at a relatively inexpensive price.

Re:Skype is more than just 'hype' (sorry...)

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info. I will check the headsets you mentioned. I have tried some generic ones and was very annoyed.

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to post a link showing where 'Skype is real Peer to Peer', 'doesnt have actual servers carrying the data' ?!??

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[holy zarquon's singi]

I've been using skype on Mac|Linux|Windex since it was beta on Linux/Mac, and one think I've noticed is that within the past couple of months, they must have started storing my contacts on a central server somewhere, as every time I install on a new machine, my contacts list is automatically updated. It used to be that I had to copy some xml files, and then get my contacts to re-authorize me for each new machine.

Slightly, but not hugely concerned about that one...

I'd really like to see a compatible GPL product - Skype is the one thing that I've recommended to my non-technical friends/family that they really get enthused about.

Tell us more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us more about jacking off with comic books, you fucking weirdo.

Been done before

[alpha713]

Neither Kazaa nor Skype were inventions as such, sure the technology behind them may be impressive, but an invention is something that has never been done before.Both Netmeeting and Paltalk are examples of programs that have used voice chat in the past (with Napster being the relevant example for Kazaa). What he has effectively done is step into market niches, otherwise known as being in the right place at the right time.

The technology may well be impressive, but cutting the phone companies profits will eventually catch up with us. I don't think that they'll go out of business as such, but it will affect the quality of service these companies supply if they are hurting from this. Skype is not exactly the same as P2P where sharing has actually increased the number of CD sales, or where the artist and record producer have (in the past) had a license to print money (if their decent).

Telecommunication Companies have to take care of infrastructure, and pay wages to a myrriad of employees. VoIP and Skype are all very well, but what happens when the internet goes down, its happened before (at least to chunks of it), and it can happen again. Is it just going to be a case of blaming the internet when our customers ask why they couldn't contact you?

Enough for now!

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Koguma]

Here you go you lazy bastard:

http://support.skype.com/index.php?_a=knowledgebas e&_j=questiondetails&_i=70&nav2=General

Why is Skype better than Net2Phone, ICQ, AIM, MSN, etc?

Because it works! Most Voice-over-IP applications don't work from behind firewalls and NAT (Network Address Translation) devices. Nearly all broadband users are behind a NAT or firewall and so they cannot use VoIP applications. Skype is not a typical VoIP application - it's P2P Telephony! Because of its advanced design, Skype works behind nearly any firewall and NAT!

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Koguma]

Stanaphone is also 2.7 cents a minute versus Skype's 2 cents for US and most international calls. (Yes, some are more expensive). VM's are emailed as attachments? Who wants that? Skype has it all in the interface, I don't want VM's clogging up my email. The Fax feature is cool, and I may use that in addition to Skype just for that alone.

One bad thing about Skype that no one seems to have metioned, is shite customer service. I've been having a problem with their v 1.3 client, as in it uses 90% of the CPU on my 2.8GH HT machine, and calls sound like a Waynes World burger order. I've requested they give me a link to the old 1.2 client, but so far.. nada... three days already...

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Koguma]

And oh yeah.. I love it how Stanaphone requires you to enter your home phone number for verification for registration. Kinda retarded for a VoIP application to be asking for that, dontcha think?

Kinda like you calling the phone company to ask for a line, and being asked to provide a phone number for verification. MMMmmm kay... they're gonna go far.

Is Skype secure, or can people eavesdrop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anybody done a detailed analysis of how secure Skype is?

adware

[rch2]

How about "Software Nuker" adding Skype to their adware list? Frankly I'm afraid of running Skype on my PC - I don't trust it.

Re:I will give some credit. Some negative too.

[Breakfast Pants]

That shouldn't be too concerning. Without that feature you can spoof permission to have people on your contact list. They used to have programs to do just that for ICQ back when it was popular.